<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 13, 2009, at 12:56 PM, 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; "><blockquote type="cite">Incidentally why do you suppose Searle<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">didn't replace the little man with one of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">those punch card reading machines? It could certainly<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">do a better job than a real flesh and blood human, so why<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">not use it?<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br></blockquote><br>Such an argument would not address the question of strong AI, where a strong AI is defined as one that has mindful understanding of its own words </span></blockquote><div><br></div>In other words you mean the ability to read symbols and use that information to accomplish a task, like arrange a large set of cards in a particular order and print new information in that symbolic language on the cards. Come to think of it I don't believe those old punch card machines even used vacuum tubes, they were purely mechanical. <div><br></div><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; ">and does not merely speak mindlessly.</span></blockquote><div><br></div>If you think something can behave intelligently without a mind then that word has no meaning for you, it is, dare I say it, mindless.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark<br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><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 considers that the difference between weak and strong AI, and on this point I agree with him.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></span></blockquote></div><br></body></html>