From: erayo@bilkent.edu.tr
cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) wrote in message news:<416
cd25$1@news.unimelb.edu.au>...
> 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.
I appreciate this critical comment. Let me then also ask of which
criteria we should be employing for distinguishing Strong AI research.
Should we be drawing these borders guided by the works in philosophy
of mind, psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, etc.?
Regards,
--
Eray Ozkural
[ 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)
|
