Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5933 sci.philosophy.tech:2082
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!peregrine!ccicpg!cci632!jct
From: jct@cci632.UUCP (John Thompson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: more Chinese Room
Summary: My $0.02 worth
Keywords: Chinese room, CR, Searle
Message-ID: <33868@cci632.UUCP>
Date: 9 Feb 90 19:00:33 GMT
References: <2602@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jan9.162338.28110@twwells.com> <9458@cbmvax.commodore.com> <21866@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <7758@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu>
Reply-To: jct@ccird3.UUCP (John Thompson)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Society Of Technologically Confused Humans ( SCOTCH 'n H20 )
Lines: 58

In article <7758@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> bloch@thor.UUCP (Steve Bloch) writes:
> [ after some deletions ] :
>>
>>	1 ) "Thinking", as done by the human brain, is likely NOT
>>algorithmic
>
>Show me one shred of experimental evidence for that statement.
>And don't try to exclude parallelism; that's a hot area in current
>algorithmic complexity theory.

Please excuse what is probably naivette on my part.

I will agree that there is no evidence that deductive reasoning ( I use
reasoning rather than thinking because it seems that there is some semantic 
confusion on the meaning of "thinking" ) is algolrithmically based. Deductive
reasoning, by definition, follows rules and therefore is an algorithm.

I don't see a way that inductive reasoning, which by the definitions I am used
to does not always follow rules ( i.e. the jump without sufficent data ), can
be reduced to an algolrithm. Can anyone out there enlighten me as to where I am 
wrong with this?

>machine with no loudspeaker.) But it preserves the aspects of
>speech we're interested in: semantic content.  Similarly, I maintain
>that the aspects of "thinking" we're interested in are not biological
>or chemical, and so they need not be preserved by a simulation in
>order for that simulation to be good.  If you insist that thinking IS
>primarily a biochemical phenomenon, thus assuming your conclusion that
>only brains can give rise to it, I suspect the vast majority of human
>beings will agree with me.

I maintain that human thinking is so inextricibly linked into the biological
matrix from which it springs that to attempt to PRACTICALLY ( emphasis is
delibrate ) simulate such "thinking" will require either :

1) A level of complexity to the simulation that is indistinguishable from
   a biological matrix. By this I mean in hardware OR software or both.

Or :

2) A simplified simulation that does not closely approximate the required
   level of "thought".

Finally, and not intended as a flame, I do not see the need for the "vast
majority" of humanity to agree with your points. The vast majority of human
beings in this world are not capable ( by education or lack of ) to understand
these points, and can not affect the validity (or lack of) in your arguements.
Again, I am not flaming, just confused by the line of reasoning and wish to
have it explained.

================================================================================
	And home sings me of sweet things,    |  All opinions are my own. That's
	My life there has its own wings,      |  because no one will haul them
	Fly me o'er the mountain,             |  away at the price I'll pay.
	Though I'm standin' still ...
		-Bonnie Raitt                            John C. Thompson

================================================================================