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 /* ---------- */