X-Message-Number: 4021
Date: Thu, 16 Mar 1995 22:12:03 -0800
From: John K Clark <>
Subject: SCI.CYRONICS Symbols

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

In Message #4012   (Thomas Donaldson)  Wrote: 

	      > Come on now! Two objects can perfectly well agree without the
	      >existence of a convention.
	      
If they are not agreeing on a convention, exactly are they
agreeing on? I humbly suggest you purchase a good dictionary and
look up the word " convention".
	       
	     >I shall substitute "object" for every time you use that word 
	     >[ symbol]. If what you say makes sense, great. If what you say    
	     >sounds nonsensical with that substitution, then that may tell 
	     >you something.
	       
Yes, it does tell me something, it tells me your more interested
in scoring debating points than the truth. Mr.Donaldson you are
unique, I've has people misquote me before but this is the first
time somebody's admitted to doing it deliberately and plans to
continue the practice. I hope readers of Cryonet will remember
this the next time he attributes some idiotic statement to me. 
	 

  Wrote:
		
		>Recently I suggested that feeling in animals might (for
		>example)  require simultaneous real-time actions or 
		>conditions impossible for a Turing tape. John Clark
		>responded, in effect, that the probability of this is 
		>virtually zero. Perhaps he would care to make this
		>probability calculation explicit, or at least indicate 
		>clearly how he arrives at this conclusion.
		
Nobody this side of a loony bin really believes that they are
the only conscious being in the universe, this despite the fact
that we don't have absolute proof of it. When we observe other
people acting in intelligent, purposeful, emotional, ways it's
just not possible to think of them as robots without
consciousness, logically it's possible but the idea is so
ridiculous that few think it deserves serious thought.
		
Turing proved 50 years ago that the same behavior that convinces
us of consciousness in other people can be produced by a
machine. Logically it's possible that the machine would not 
have a subjective experience of consciousness but the idea is so
ridiculous that it does not deserve serious thought.
		
I'd also like to say that Perry E. Metzger ( ) in
#4010 gave us a first rate post about Turing machines. This man
knows what he is talking about.
		
				   John K Clark           

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.i

iQCzAgUBL2kY0H03wfSpid95AQHPxwTvQsXXyNldFrkdHlgt3BugLF6EwLAlek81
7yxQX+n03ETw/XHEV2I/gLTeFg5F8eVQNmtmDT4pYoV14qUlOrwK3Vb50FomuhHx
L1yVAOhrLyTwiUFD/FeFS2gQi/PsqfR3SWcwPhDI2VK3eTRouuVJ0eB1nkoNMr7F
JZ7ozuMXML0V4lvvOLqCben1+8/32iQctpaSBAOhotRMhSEbeyY=
=QggM
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=4021