From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+ Mon Dec 16 11:00:35 EST 1991
Article 1982 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!udel!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+
>From: fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Franklin Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <gdEvRe_00iUzA2j5NT@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 91 18:35:22 GMT
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 26

Drew McDermott writes:

> Searle has two arguments, the original Chinese Room argument, and the
> Scientific American argument, with "Axioms" and "Conclusions."  I
> think he finally realized just how silly the first one was, and came
> up with the second to compensate.  

I'm not sure in what sense it compensates, except to satisfy those who
prefer to see axioms and conclusions explicitly stated.  It seems that 
Axiom 3 -- "Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for
semantics." -- assumes that his original Chinese argument is self evident
so that Conclusion 1 -- "Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient
for minds." -- is merely a formality based on the three axioms stated in 
the (Scientific American) article.  Everything that's important is hidden 
in Axiom 3 (perhaps you were being sarcastic in using the word "compensate").

> It's a logical point, maybe even a terminological point, and hence
> entirely independent of the Chinese Room argument, as I'm sure Searle
> is aware.  Unfortunately, it settles nothing.  Suppose we agree that

Yes, it's entirely independent which is why it settles nothing.  Not that
the Chinese Room argument settles the issue scientifically, but it strongly
suggests that an investigation into what Searle refers to as "causal
properties" is necessary.

-Frank


