In article <7dqv7o$ocf$1 at nnrp1.dejanews.com>, rick at kana.stanford.edu wrote:
>I agree with Minsky's and Pinker's hypotheses that there several different
>mechanisms contributing to what we call thought-
>some are more holistic and some are more symbolic.
First of all, it is not even clear what thought is.
How does it arise?
Did anyone actually try to observe how their own
Thinking is connected to the essense of the being
and is a reflection of material manifestations world.
It is not separable from the rest of the being.
You can not model it without considering the very
essense of the being.
Anotherwords, what they are talking about when they
refer to thinking is utter and complete obscenity,
those monkey dudes, talking here about artificial
obscenity and not intelligence.