From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!coolidge!zeleny Mon Dec  9 10:48:36 EST 1991
Article 1920 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!paperboy.osf.org!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!coolidge!zeleny
>From: zeleny@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1991Dec6.174522.6237@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 6 Dec 91 22:45:20 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu> 
 <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 53
Nntp-Posting-Host: coolidge.harvard.edu

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:

MG:
>>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.

DC:
>(1) Recipes are completely syntactic.
>
>
>(2) Cakes are crumbly.
>
>(3) Syntax is not sufficient for crumbliness.

Substitute an analogue of the following conclusion of Searle:

syntax cannot account for semantics, nor uniquely determine it.

DC:
>(4) Therefore implementing the appropriate recipe cannot be sufficient
>    to produce a cake.

Dumb.

DC:
>Reflection on why this argument is fallacious should lead one to
>uncover the fallacy in Searle's analogous argument.

Reflection on why this argument is fallacious should lead one to
uncover your failure to understand what Searle is talking about.

>-- 
>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."


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


