One graph · many sheets
The argument
crosses the page.
Horn printed references from one map into another. Those references are the seams of the seven-sheet system. This view exposes a first verified slice of them without inventing semantic connections that are not present in the source.
Admission rule Every edge below must be explicitly printed on a recovered Horn map.
Cross-map traffic
Seven sheets.
One debate.
Argument pathways
Follow Horn’s own links.
01
Map 1 · Box 35
Machines can't think dialectically, and dialectical thinking is necessary for emotions.
supported by →
Map 3 · Box 25
Symbol Systems Cannot Think Dialectically
Printed evidence
Map 1 Box 35 prints: Supported by “Symbol Systems Cannot Think Dialectically,” Map 3, Box 25.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 02
Map 1 · Box 37
Emotional experience is necessary for thought.
also see →
Map 6 · Box 10
Mechanisms Can't Possess Human Consciousness
Printed evidence
Map 1 Box 37 prints: Also, see “Mechanisms Can’t Possess Human Consciousness,” Map 6, Box 10.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 03
Map 2 · Box 24
Simulations are duplications if the inputs and outputs are of the right kind.
supported by →
Map 4 · Box 55
The Chinese Room Is More Than A Simulation
Printed evidence
Map 2 Box 24 prints: Supported by “The Chinese Room Is More Than A Simulation,” Box 55, Map 4.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 04
Map 2 · Box 34
ELIZA
see →
Map 1 · Box 106
The ELIZA Effect
Printed evidence
Map 2 Box 34 identifies ELIZA as an implemented model and points to “The ELIZA Effect,” Map 1, Box 106.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 05
Map 2 · Box 56
The reverse Turing test
also see →
Map 1 · Box 106
The ELIZA Effect
Printed evidence
Map 2 Box 56 prints: Also, see “The ELIZA Effect,” Map 1, Box 106.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 06
Map 6 · Box 12
Knowledge of other minds is based on external behavior.
supported by →
Map 2 · Box 2
The Turing Test Is an Adequate Test of Thinking
Printed evidence
Map 6 Box 12 prints: Supported by “The Turing Test Is an Adequate Test of Thinking,” Map 2, Box 2.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 07
Map 3 · Box 46
The rule-following assumption
also see →
Map 5 · issue
Do connectionist networks follow rules?
Printed evidence
Map 3 Box 46 prints: Also, see the “Do connectionist networks follow rules?” arguments on Map 5.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 08
Map 5 · Box 59
Common sense and connectionism
also see →
Map 3 · issue
Can a symbolic knowledge base represent human understanding?
Printed evidence
Map 5 Box 59 prints: Also, see the “Can a symbolic knowledge base represent human understanding?” arguments on Map 3.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 09
Map 6 · Box 29
The fading qualia thought experiment
compare →
Map 4 · issue
Can computers have the right causal powers?
Printed evidence
Map 6 Box 29 prints: Compare to the “Can computers have the right causal powers?” arguments on Map 4.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master 10
Map 6 · Box 38
Machine-state functionalism
also see →
Map 7 · issue
Can automata think?
Printed evidence
Map 6 Box 38 prints: Also, see the “Can automata think?” arguments on Map 7.
1998 Version 1.0 / recovered print master Machine-readable projection
This is also an API surface.
The same admitted pathways are emitted as static JSON. A later Three.js, Godot, search, accessible-text, or conversational projection can consume this manifest instead of scraping presentation markup.
Open pathways.json →Scope note
This is a seed slice, not an exhaustive inventory of cross-references. It intentionally distinguishes box-to-box references from issue- and sidebar-level references. Admission is source-first: the print master wins over inference, similarity, or modern reinterpretation.