From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!rutgers!rochester!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+ Mon Dec 16 11:01:41 EST 1991
Article 2098 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!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!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: <gdGD73200Uh_E2nZty@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 13 Dec 91 17:45:39 GMT
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 18

David Chalmers writes:

>In article <8dEvbVS00iUzA2j64r@andrew.cmu.edu> fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu
(Franklin B
>oyle) writes:
> 
>> In what sense is an implementation any less syntactic than the program
>> itself?
> 
>The program is just marks on paper.  The implementation is a complex
>physical system with rich internal causal organization.
 
True enough, but then my question is: How does merely *being* causal
suggest that implementing the marks on paper as "high" and "low" voltage
combinations will produce anything more than syntactic structures and 
physical changes based solely on their forms?

-Frank


