From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken Mon Dec  9 10:48:39 EST 1991
Article 1925 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!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
>From: yodaiken@chelm.cs.umass.edu (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <40322@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 7 Dec 91 03:11:12 GMT
References: <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Dec6.174522.6237@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Dec7.011330.8298@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 19

>>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.
>

No matter how many times I get my computer to run through
a recipe, there's still nothing to eat.  Let them eat 
production systems.




