Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!ig!arizona!mike
From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Chinese Room Argument
Message-ID: <9690@megaron.arizona.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 89 20:31:45 GMT
References: <10704@bcsaic.UUCP>
Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson
Lines: 29

From article <10704@bcsaic.UUCP>, by ray@bcsaic.UUCP (Ray Allis):
> Is there some evidence
> that would cause you to re-inspect your conviction that the "Systems Reply"
> is sufficient?   What part of the process by which I came to see the
> inadequacy of the symbol processing approach can I explain more clearly?

Sure.  Convince me that no symbol-pushing engine can simulate pieces
of my brain, if you make the pieces small enough.  My belief in the
systems reply is based exactly on this:

1) I have in my possesion a system that seems to understand and think:
   my brain.  (My wife might argue about that...)
2) The brain (and the rest of the body) is made up of physical parts:
   electrons, atoms, molecules, cells, organs, etc.
3) I see no reason, in principle, that such parts can't be simulated
   to any desired precision, given powerful enough computers.  Not
   necessarily Turing machines; we may need random bits.
4) Given such simulators, I see no reason, in principle, that I can't
   begin replacing my biological parts with simulated parts.
   Obviously I will need some chemical peripherals to interface the
   two systems.
5) Given that the simulations are accurate enough, I see no reason that
   at some point in the process of replacement I will cease to
   understand: e.g., that with 23.999% of my brain simulated, I understand,
   but with 24.000% I cease understanding.
-- 
Mike Coffin				mike@arizona.edu
Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci.	{allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike
Tucson, AZ  85721			(602)621-2858