Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!srp
From: srp@ethz.UUCP (Scott Presnell)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Success of AI
Message-ID: <224@bernina.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 20-Oct-87 02:30:06 EDT
Article-I.D.: bernina.224
Posted: Tue Oct 20 02:30:06 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 21-Oct-87 06:54:36 EDT
References: <193@PT.CS.CMU.EDU>
Reply-To: srp@bernina.UUCP (Scott Presnell)
Organization: Chem. Dept., Swiss Federal Inst. of Tech. (ETH-Zurich)
Lines: 28

In article <193@PT.CS.CMU.EDU> spe@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Sean Engelson) writes:

>
>Given a sufficiently powerful computer, I could, in theory, simulate
>the human body and brain to any desired degree of accuracy.  This

Horse shit.  The problem is you don't even know exactly what you are
simulating!  I suppose you could say it's all a problem of definition,
however even with your assumtion that the mind is a integral part of the
body I still claim that you don't know what you're simulating.  For
instance, dreams, are they logical?, do they fall in a pattern?, a computer
has got to have them to be a real simulation of a body/mind, but you cannot
simulate what you cannot accurately describe.

Let's get down to a specific case:
I propose that given any amount of computing power, you could not presently,
and probably will never be able to simulate me: Scott R. Presnell.
My wife can be the judge.  

This may sound reactionary, that's because that's the way I responded
internally to this first statement.  I apologize if I've jumped into a
discussion too quickly, I don't have time to read the previous discussions
right now.  

Scott Presnell 						Organic Chemistry
Swiss Federal Institute of Technology  (ETH-Zentrum)
CH-8092 Zurich, Switzerland.
uucp:seismo!mcvax!cernvax!ethz!srp (srp@ethz.uucp); bitnet:Benner@CZHETH5A