From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Thu Dec 26 23:57:46 EST 1991
Article 2333 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Searle's response to silicon brain?
Message-ID: <1991Dec21.015200.14397@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <40822@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1991Dec18.193242.10535@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <BSIMON.91Dec19071828@elvis.stsci.edu>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 91 01:52:00 GMT
Lines: 13

In article <BSIMON.91Dec19071828@elvis.stsci.edu> bsimon@elvis.stsci.edu (Bernie Simon) writes:

>This argument ignores the fact that neurons have chemical as well as
>electrical behaviour. Since no "Chinese room" can secrete or absorb
>chemicals, any such replacement for a neuron could not be functionally
>identical for the cell it replaces.

We simulate the chemical behaviour too.  No difference in principle.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


