>>35
By syntax, I just mean rule based. Computers just follow rules vis a vis humans, who when processing information, have intentionality and meaning. (ie, semantics)
So, for example, take a Turing compatible machine. It has all the behaviors to 'trick' us into thinking it is intelligent. But it is all just formal processing with no "meaning". If I kick the Turing Machine and it gives an output "Ouch!", we can infer that it really isn't "feeling" pain but just spitting an output.
Read up on the Chinese Room Argument for a better explaination!:
http://www.macrovu.com/CCTWeb/CCT4/CCTMap4.html
I'm sure there are a lot of follow-up disputes to my example. Behaviorists wouldn't care for the difference. The Right Casual Powers is all murky and confusing. An internalized Chinese Room is equally confusing.
>>34
I secede that Neurons aren't binary! Thanks for the information. But I still think Neurons can be simulated. Here is a more accurate representation on how Neurons are simulated in computers:
http://www.macrovu.com/CCTWeb/CCT5A/CCT5APostulates.html
Ignoring plausibility for now ( it’s just a thought experiment), Connectionist would argue if the brain's Neurons are simulated, is the computer now considered a conscious, semantic, intentional, self-referencing being? I mean, it's simulating what I think are responsible for the Right Casual Powers.
And is a simulation in virtual space valid? If we simulate a hurricane on a computer, nobody believes that it's a real hurricane. Just more to chew on.