<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 10, 2009, Gordon Swobe wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">Searle rejects epiphenomenonalism -- the view that subjective mental events act only as "side-effects" and do not cause physical events. Searle thinks they do; that if you consciously will to raise your arm, and it rises, your conscious willing had something to do with the fact that it rose.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote><br></div><div>This is the sort of thing that gives philosophy a bad name. It's a completely empty argument, its like debating if pressure caused the balloon to pop or if it popped because too many air molecules were hitting the inside of the balloon.</div><div><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>Do you mean to say that if something behaves exactly as if it has human intelligence, it must have strong AI?</div></blockquote><div><br></div>Certainly.<div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"> If so then we mean different things by strong AI.<br></blockquote><br></div><div>I don't use the term "strong AI" myself because if it has any meaning at all it means programing a soul. I don't believe in the soul, it's a useless concept.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>