Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article
From: Glen M. Sizemore (gmsizemore2_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 07/30/04
- Next message: Sergio Navega: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Previous message: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Next in thread: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Fri, 30 Jul 2004 13:16:24 -0400
Nice try, Rickert. And George Harrison always claimed that "My Sweet Lord"
was not "She's So Fine."
"Neil W Rickert" <rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> wrote in message
news:cecgka$5cp$3@usenet.cso.niu.edu...
> David Longley <David@longley.demon.co.uk> writes:
> >In article <cec1j0$vha$1@usenet.cso.niu.edu>, Neil W Rickert
> ><rickert+nn@cs.niu.edu> writes
>
> >>A computationalist such as Eray is likely to want a description in
> >>terms of software. I would look for one in terms of the functioning
> >>of the system as a whole.
>
> >That is, its behaviour.
>
> No, "behavior" is the wrong term here. Perhaps "being" would be a
> more appropriate word.
>
- Next message: Sergio Navega: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Previous message: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: R&M's "memory illusions" and functional verbal response classes"
- In reply to: Neil W Rickert: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Next in thread: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Reply: Glen M. Sizemore: "Re: Aaron Sloman's "The Irrelevance of Turing Machines to AI" article"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]