Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uokvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uokvax!emjej
From: emjej@uokvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Re: Can computers think? - (nf)
Message-ID: <9500005@uokvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 30-May-84 11:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uokvax.9500005
Posted: Wed May 30 11:42:00 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 05:20:14 EDT
References: <1698@stolaf.UUCP>
Lines: 21
Nf-ID: #R:stolaf:-169800:uokvax:9500005:000:743
Nf-From: uokvax!emjej    May 30 10:42:00 1984

#R:stolaf:-169800:uokvax:9500005:000:743
uokvax!emjej    May 30 10:42:00 1984

/***** uokvax:net.philosophy / stolaf!johnsons /  9:27 am  May 13, 1984 */

>1) only that which is human, or human-like, do we say that thinking occurs.

That is just an accident of history, thanks to our so far having only seen
thinking beings that happen to be human.

>2) computers as yet
>do not have sufficient conclusive proof (to me at any rate) that they 
>are creative, that they can manipulate knowledge in new, original ways.

Sigh. I am not aware of conclusive proof that humans can manipulate
knowledge in new, original ways. (Not to say that I don't see humans
manipulating knowledge in ways that I don't think I would have thought
of.) What do you mean by "new and original"? Give an example.

					James Jones
/* ---------- */