Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.08 10/3/83; site psuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!akgua!psuvax!simon
From: simon@psuvax.UUCP (Janos Simon)
Newsgroups: net.ai
Subject: Re: A topic for discussion, phil/ai persons.
Message-ID: <1063@psuvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 20-May-84 18:46:23 EDT
Article-I.D.: psuvax.1063
Posted: Sun May 20 18:46:23 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 21-May-84 06:24:29 EDT
References: <277@wxlvax.UUCP> <503@sequent.UUCP>
Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ.
Lines: 13

[]
The philosophical discussion seems to reveal the basic fallacy of the original
argument (Computers cannot possibly ...), namely, WHAT is it that we want
computers to do? The original submission basically said
"This is how we humans would act. Computers are being programmed today to 
simulate such behavior using very restricted techniques. Therefore no such
simulation can possibly exist."

Some very learned submissions showed that there is wide disagreement in
defining what we mean by "sameness" - in fact this is a fundamental question
of philosophy. Nevertheless, each of the competing explanations could be 
mechanized - perhaps at prohibitive cost.
js