Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!hercules!gilham From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Sci. American AI debate Message-ID: Date: 5 Jan 90 23:26:48 GMT References: <85384@linus.UUCP> <16577@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <12667@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <52471@srcsip.UUCP> Sender: usenet@csl.sri.com Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Lines: 24 In-reply-to: cmiller@SRC.Honeywell.COM's message of 5 Jan 90 15:41:16 GMT kpfleger@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Karl Robert Pfleger) writes: --------- Thus, this argument is less about what computers can or cannot do, and more about definitions and semantics and, especially, the awarding of labels. If AI programs cannot "think," then perhaps we need some new verb to describe what it is that they do and how this process differs from both traditional, algorithmic "computing", and human "thinking". --------- You mention three processes: 1) what AI programs do, 2) algorithmic computing, and 3) human thinking. However, there are at most two distinct processes here. That is, AI programs + hardware + some intelligent being to interpret the results = algorithmic computing. This is a basic concept. There are no programs that run on computers that are not algorithmic. The question is whether 2 and 3 are equivalent. The strong AI position is that they are. But the whole point of the Chinese Room argument is that Searle can be doing something that falls in category 2 yet not be doing 3, AND can be aware of the fact that he is doing 2 and not doing 3. -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com