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 10:48:31 EST 1991
Article 1913 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 and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <5815@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Dec 91 18:57:09 GMT
References: <gdCb=YW00UhWQ2lpNp@andrew.cmu.edu> <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 20

In article <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>>It seems to me that, unless strong AI proponents can provide a coherent
>>explanation of why Searle's logical argument fails, the field as a whole
>>rests on a profound misunderstanding.
>
>(1) Recipes are completely syntactic.
>
>(2) Cakes are crumbly.
>
>(3) Syntax is not sufficient for crumbliness.
>
>(4) Therefore implementing the appropriate recipe cannot be sufficient
>    to produce a cake.
>
>Reflection on why this argument is fallacious should lead one to
>uncover the fallacy in Searle's analogous argument.

It doesn't look enough like Searle's argument to me.  


