[spwa4]

You could reverse that argument. The only thing that ever happens in a human mind is a Sodium-Kalium semi-permeable membrane balancing out (meaning going from polarized to unpolarized) and triggering the tiniest of explosions spreading one of 4 chemicals around. Repeat a few billion times per second for ~80 years.

The Eliza effect is off the scale.

What I'm trying to say is that the underlying method is not a valid reason to discredit one thinking process over another.

[lamasery]

I remain baffled that anyone thinks dragging brains into discussions of these things does anything but make everyone more confused. This kind of thing is exactly what I'm getting at—that it's common for even people in the computer technology field to think the comparison is apt, or illuminates anything, is a wild indication of how inclined we are to be tricked by computer programs that happen to operate on language.

[spwa4]

The point is, of course, that human thinking is also a physical process, build on basic building blocks.

[Kim_Bruning]

Feeling is mutual, actually O:-)

Anthropomorphism and Anthropodenial are both variants of Anthropocentrism, and share the same limitations. Have you considered other axes of thought?

I can readily admit that lots of humans will naively anthropomorphize horrendously, but I think that:

- The eliza effect is not what people think it is

- What is actually going on is obscured by all the anthropomorphizing

- But this is yet no grounds to throw out the underlying phenomenon, especially when a) it can be useful and/or b) it causes people to get hurt.

[stevenhuang]

You are baffled because of your own ignorance of the underlying principles under discussion. Do you believe in a dualist interpretation of reality, that the process of thinking is somehow nonphysical? That these programs operate on language is besides the point. The fact you think this is why it's interesting shows you don't even understand the argument.

Are you familiar with the physical church turing thesis?