Xref: utzoo comp.ai:2830 talk.philosophy.misc:1694 Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!clyde!att!rutgers!bpa!sjuvax!tmoody From: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc Subject: Re: Artificial Intelligence and Intelligence Message-ID: <1736@sjuvax.UUCP> Date: 8 Dec 88 13:38:42 GMT References: <562@metapsy.UUCP> <2732@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> <563@metapsy.UUCP> <1841@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> Reply-To: tmoody@sjuvax.UUCP (T. Moody) Organization: St. Joseph's University, Phila. PA. Lines: 18 In article <1841@cadre.dsl.PITTSBURGH.EDU> geb@cadre.dsl.pittsburgh.edu (Gordon E. Banks) writes: >I will ask Serge the same questions I asked Gilbert: if humans are >not a machine, what elements are added to the body (which seems to >be a physical machine as far as we can tell) which make it otherwise? >Are these material or immaterial? Is there some aspect of human >beings which does not obey the laws of nature? The assumption here is that anything that "obeys the laws of nature" [as currently understood, or some future set?] is a machine. I have stayed out of the discussion so far, because this is a singularly uninteresting conception of "machine," in my view. If you don't understand "machine" in a way that lets you distinguish between, say, trees and clocks, then you are taking this word on a long holiday. -- Todd Moody * {allegra|astrovax|bpa|burdvax}!sjuvax!tmoody * SJU Phil. Dept. "The mind-forg'd manacles I hear." -- William Blake