You misunderstand. The test is being able to form cognitive structures
that
can serve as the basis for later more complicated cognitive structures.
Your pattern matcher does not do this.
It doesn't? How do you know? Unless you are a Searlian.
Show me an example of where/how your pattern matcher uses the cognitive
structures it derives as a basis for future, more complicated cognitive
structures. (My assumption is that) There is no provision for that in your
code and that the system is too simple for it to evolve spontaneously. Are
you actually claiming that your system does "form cognitive structures that
can serve as the basis for later more complicated cognitive structures"?
Why do you keep throwing around the "Searlian" buzzword/pejorative?
Previous discussions on this mailing list have made it quite clear that the
people on this list don't even agree on what it means much less what it's
implications are . . . .
----- Original Message -----
From: "Philip Goetz" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, December 04, 2006 2:03 PM
Subject: Re: [agi] A question on the symbol-system hypothesis
On 12/3/06, Mark Waser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> This sounds very Searlian. The only "test" you seem to be referring to
> is the Chinese Room test.
You misunderstand. The test is being able to form cognitive structures
that
can serve as the basis for later more complicated cognitive structures.
Your pattern matcher does not do this.
It doesn't? How do you know? Unless you are a Searlian.
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
-----
This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email
To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to:
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?list_id=303
