From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon Dec  9 10:48:30 EST 1991
Article 1911 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!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <5814@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Dec 91 18:51:32 GMT
References: <2127@ucl-cs.uucp> <91338.113617KELLYDK@QUCDN.QueensU.CA> <5796@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Dec06.012355.28517@spss.com>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 18

In article <1991Dec06.012355.28517@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <5796@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>Searle considers robots, at least, because of the so-called
>>"robot reply": if you give the Room some sensors, the ability
>>to manipulate objects, etc, it will understand.  Searle points
>>out that the outputs of the sensors, the control instructions
>>for the manipulators, etc, are just more symbols that have to
>>-- somehow -- be given meanings.  So it's symbol manipulation
>>again.
>
>By the same reasoning, human beings have no ability to refer to things in
>the outside world either.  

Please look up Searle's actual argument on this point rather than
relying on my brief summary of it.

If Searle's right about the Chinese Room without sensors, I don't
see why adding sensors would suddenly solve the problem.  Do you?


