Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3255 talk.religion.misc:10751
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ames!ucsd!nosc!macomw!shouse
From: shouse@macomw.ARPA (claude shouse)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Elementary AI Philosophy
Keywords: Understanding and Comprehension, Reality and Modeling
Message-ID: <474@macomw.ARPA>
Date: 31 Jan 89 01:21:39 GMT
References: <18464@santra.UUCP> <1241@arctic.nprdc.arpa> <904@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <44077@linus.UUCP>
Organization: Hughes Network Systems, San Diego, CA
Lines: 33

In article <44077@linus.UUCP>, bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) writes:
> In article <9465@ihlpb.ATT.COM> arm@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Macalalad,A.R.)
> publishes a somewhat extended discussion in lieu of bounced E-mail.
> I hope that the netters won't find our open dialogue too offensive.
> 

If I get a vote I hope you keep it right here.  I'm absorbed by it and
hope that others are also.

> 
>  > My point was to argue that Searle's man inside the computer was
>  > essentially a homunculus.   ...  Finally, since most of us agree
>  > that none of us need a little man inside our head in order to
>  > understand, Searle's assumption that a computer _does_ can
>  > easily be seen as fallacious.
> 

Forgive me if this has been covered already.  Why is it fallacious?
A man does not need a homunculus because he is the homunculus.  But
the computer would need a homunculus if it were to understand things
like fear and joy.  Am I way off base here?

A while back a linguist posted two sentences that were parsed the same
way.  1)  That plane flies like an arrow.
      2)  Fruit flies like an orange.

Maybe I really don't know how far AI has progressed in computers.  Do we
really have computers that generate the proper models to get the sense of
these ideas?

Just wondering.

Claude Shouse