Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!tank!ncar!asuvax!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!voder!dtg.nsc.com!andrew
From: andrew@dtg.nsc.com (Lord Snooty @ The Giant Poisoned Electric Head       )
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Summary: parce que
Message-ID: <626@berlioz.nsc.com>
Date: 8 Feb 90 19:56:53 GMT
References: <1037@ra.stsci.edu> <6902@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <1995@moscom.UUCP> <1329@oravax.UUCP>
Distribution: comp.ai
Organization: National Semiconductor, Santa Clara
Lines: 13

In article <1329@oravax.UUCP>, ian@oravax.UUCP (Ian Sutherland) writes:
> I wrote:
> -If we substitute "universe" for "chinese room", and "the laws of physics"
> -for "the rules of chinese language", are we to conclude that the cosmos
> -is a conscious entity?
> Why is this absurd (as your "Summary" line suggests)?		 Sans Peur

Because, as Dean points out, there is no external referent to "universe".
However, if we now consider a microcosm which obeys the laws of physics
(and we are not proponents of Mach) perhaps the absurdity goes away?
-- 
...........................................................................
Andrew Palfreyman	andrew@dtg.nsc.com	Albania before April!