From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon Dec  9 10:48:37 EST 1991
Article 1923 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1991Dec7.011330.8298@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Dec6.174522.6237@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Sat, 7 Dec 1991 01:13:30 GMT
Lines: 29

zeleny@coolidge.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>>(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.

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

 No.  It is your failure to understand Dave's point which illustrates you
are as confused as is Searle.  Although I flippantly criticized his
assumption (1), his analogy is right on target.  However you are unable to
see his point because you have too many preconceived notions which you
are unable to cast off, and which distort your thinking.


-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


