From: cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk   
      
   erayo@bilkent.edu.tr (Eray Ozkural  exa) writes:   
      
   >man@acm.org (MKN) wrote in message news:<40fd18dc$1@news.unimelb.edu.au>...   
      
   >> The generally accepted definition of the term "strong AI" is   
   >> the believe that machine that does logical processing are   
   >> in a way "thinking," and "weak AI" point of view is that   
   >> machines can act "as if" they are intelligent.   
      
   >The definitions are philosophical since they started with Searle's   
   >distinction, I believe. I wonder what the "information requirements"   
   >would be from a CS point of view, rather than a comp.ai.philosophy   
   >point of view.   
      
   Asking for the distinctions to be made in terms of information   
   requirements already makes certain presuppositions about the kinds of   
   implementation of mind that one is considering. It's a natural   
   presumption when considering the problem from a CS point of view,   
   which is one of the problems of taking a CS view of these   
   questions. Since the entire point of Searle's original Chinese Room   
   paper was to claim a fatal fundamental flaw in that viewpoint, to ask   
   such a question is begging the question.   
   --   
   Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205   
   IPAB,  Informatics,  JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK   
   [http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]   
      
   [ comp.ai is moderated.  To submit, just post and be patient, or if ]   
   [ that fails mail your article to , and ]   
   [ ask your news administrator to fix the problems with your system. ]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)