From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke Thu Dec 26 23:56:59 EST 1991
Article 2260 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle's response to silicon brain?
Message-ID: <40872@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 91 23:10:55 GMT
References: <40822@dime.cs.umass.edu> <40825@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1991Dec18.173854.3551@spss.com> <40869@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 12

In article <40869@dime.cs.umass.edu> yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken) writes:
>Look, the claimed "counter-example" thought experiment began with an
>assumption which was, in essence, the same as the conclusion. [...]
>It should not come
>as too much of a surprise, that one can conclude from this assumption that
>the silicon device would behave exactly like the human brain.

	I disagree that the assumption was in essence the same 
as the conclusion.  But leaving that aside, let me just note that 
several have now maintained that Searle would *not* conclude
that the silicon brain behaves exactly like the human brain:
rather he would conclude that the silicon brain does not understand.


