From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!bronze!chalmers Mon Dec 16 11:01:29 EST 1991
Article 2077 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1991Dec12.193222.27298@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 12 Dec 91 19:32:22 GMT
References: <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <5815@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 28

In article <5815@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 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.
>
>It doesn't look enough like Searle's argument to me.  

>From Searle, "Minds and Brains without Programs", in (Blakemore/Greenfield,
eds.) _Mindwaves_, p. 231.  (I've changed the order of the axioms, but
that's all.)

(1) Programs are defined purely formally, or syntactically.
(2) Minds have mental contents; specifically, they have semantic contents.
(3) Syntax is not sufficient for semantics.
(4) Therefore instantiating a program is never sufficient by itself for
    having a mind.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


