Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!pasteur!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee
From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <3673@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Date: 6 Apr 89 02:31:57 GMT
References: <2721@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Hawaii
Lines: 31

From article <2721@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>, by gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton):
" 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.  

Whose category mistake?  Yours?  Certainly not mine.  If you had
argued:
	As 'mind' was not designed, and not by us more
	importantly, and as it is abstract and not 'assayable'
	and not provably synthesizable, it is not fully
	understood ... Hence we cannot build an equivalent
	artifact ...

then I would not have made the particular objection that I made (though
I might have pointed out the curcularity).  But that's not what you
said.

" ...
" 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