Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <2721@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 4 Apr 89 11:24:14 GMT
References: <2705@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <3633@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 27

In article <3633@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>From article <2705@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, by gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton):
>" ...  As 'mind' was not designed, and not by us more
>" importantly, it is not fully understood for any of its activities
>" ('brains' are of course, e.g. sleep regulation).  Hence we cannot yet
>" build an equivalent artefact until we understand it.  ...
>
>It doesn't follow.  Think of a diamond, for instance.
>
Category mistake.  

Diamonds are
	a) concrete
	b) 'assayable' - i.e. you can test chemically that X is indeed a diamond
	c) synthesisable by following well-understood chemical theories

Minds are
	a) abstract
	b) not 'assayable' - what the word covers is vague.
	c) not provably sythesisable becuase of (b) no test for mindhood, and also no
	   theory of how minds get made and function

I am still thinking of a diamond however.
I cannot think of a mind.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert