From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon Dec 16 11:00:55 EST 1991
Article 2018 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room, from a different perspective
Keywords: ai philosophy searle expert system
Message-ID: <5842@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Dec 91 19:30:14 GMT
References: <5698@skye.ed.ac.uk> <71692@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <5732@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Dec9.123757.29236@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 20

In article <1991Dec9.123757.29236@wpi.WPI.EDU> ancona@wpi.WPI.EDU (James P Ancona) writes:
>In article <5732@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>I'd say you have it backwards.  The unlikely assumption is simply the
>>strong AI that Searle is trying to refute.  The book is the program
>>that's supposed to be sufficient for understanding.  If you want to
>>attack Searle's argument at that point, you have to argue that the
>>book of rules is not a fair representative for a program.

>I think a real weakness of Searle's argument is that his Chinese
>Room system has no memory.  

I thought this might come up again.  Pretty much every aspect of
the Chinese Room is identified as the "real weakness" by someone.

The low emphasis on memory may well be the reason why you don't
find Searle convincing.

However, nothing in Searle's argument depends on the CR having
no memory.  Indeed, nothing stops the rules from telling the
person to write things down.


