Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5327 talk.philosophy.misc:3389 sci.philosophy.tech:1845 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!yunexus!gall From: gall@yunexus.UUCP (Norm Gall) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech Subject: Re: Can Machines Think? Keywords: Deterministic and Chaotic Brains Message-ID: <6126@yunexus.UUCP> Date: 30 Dec 89 18:27:13 GMT References: <31821@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <32029@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> <85218@linus.UUCP> Reply-To: gall@yunexus.UUCP Organization: York University Department of Philosophy Lines: 24 bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Kort) writes: | Noise is to thinking as genetic mutations are to evolution. Most | noise is counterproductive, but occasionally the noise leads to a | cognitive breakthrough. That's called serendipity. Don't you think you are playing fast and loose with these concepts? What you say noise is when you equate it with genetic mutation is not the same as what a radio operator knows it to be, what a philosopher knows it to be, and what the mother of a teenager in Windsor, ON knows it to be. I'm not saying that you haven't defined your concepts well enough (ai scientists have more that adequately defined it, for their purposes). My question is "What licenses you to shift the meaning of any particular term?" nrg -- York University | "Philosophers who make the general claim that a Department of Philosophy | rule simply 'reduces to' its formulations Toronto, Ontario, Canada | are using Occam's razor to cut the throat _________________________| of common sense.' - R. Harris