From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+ Mon Dec 16 11:00:36 EST 1991
Article 1984 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!mips!dimacs.rutgers.edu!rutgers!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: <8dEvbVS00iUzA2j64r@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 9 Dec 91 18:45:53 GMT
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 11

David Chalmers writes:

> uncover the fallacy in Searle's analogous argument.  [Hint: a computer
> program is purely syntactic, but an *implementation* of a computer
> program is not.]

In what sense is an implementation any less syntactic than the program
itself?  Certainly no intrinsic meaning is engendered by the implementation 
process.

-Frank


