Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!rjc From: rjc@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Understanding (what is this thing called) Mind Message-ID: <724@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Date: 7 Apr 89 13:39:59 GMT References: <2691@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <813@htsa.uucp> <448@esosun.UUCP> <819@htsa.uucp> <2728@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Reply-To: rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna (Richard Caley) Organization: Dept. of AI, Edinburgh, UK Lines: 18 Dragon: Mnemouth In article <2728@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >I stick to my argument that computer >simulation cannot advance our understanding of 'mind', rather it always >lags behind it (even pulling it back by showing gaps in current >understandings). So now showing up gaps in our current understanding is a bad thing? We should perhaps skip allong happily constructing partial and possibly self contradictory theories? -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna "Politics! You can wrap it up in fancy ribbons, but you can't hide the smell" - Jack Barron