From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Tue Apr  7 23:23:47 EDT 1992
Article 4879 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: The Challenge
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <centaur.700790865@cc.gatech.edu> <6419@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu>
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 1992 18:13:57 GMT

In article <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>I have been mildly surprised by the reaction to my "challenge"
>regarding the Chinese Room.  It turns out that no one is willing
>actually to defend the argument.  Everyone actually wants to talk
>about something else:
>
>  In article <6419@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>  >If we're going to try to line up the arguments on both sides
>  >(as I think McDermott suggests), let's do it for the Turing Test
>  >too.  A defeat for the TT would make the entire discussion much
>  >more reasonable, IMHO.
>
>Michael Gemar (in e-mail) suggested that the CR was not, after all,
>the issue, but syntax vs. semantics was.  Christopher Green made the
>same point, in a posting I seem to have misplaced.  

I'm sorry not to have gotten back to you Drew, but I think you take my comments
out of context.  As I have argued *repeatedly* in this forum, the Chinese Room
is merely an attempt at providing a *demonstration* for *one* axiom of Searle's
*formal* argument.  The Chinese Room example, in and of itself, is *not* the
argument.  The *formal* argument can be found in his _Scientific American_
article, or in _Minds, Brains, and Science_.

As I have also noted recently, I am no longer convinced that the Chinese Room 
example, as a demonstration of the axiom that syntax can't yield semantics,
appropriately deals with the Systems Reply.  This is *not* to say that I
necessarily have been converted to Functionalism, as I think the axiom is
supported by the distinction made by linguists and philosophers between
syntax and semantics, *and* by the fact that AI advocates offer no
explanation of how the latter arises from the former, except faith.

So, in response to the "Challenge," as I noted to you in email, I am not
sure that I am the best person to give a canonical version of the Chinese
Room, at least insofar as it responds to the Systems Reply.  However, I don't
see that this necessarily vitiates the actual formal argument, which *has* 
been set forth in print many times.

>Tom Blenko pointed out that Searle should be the best source for his
>own argument:
>
>  I'm game. I nominate John Searle to represent his own position and
>  rebut the opposing positions. Of course, he's already done this, so
>  half the challenge is already completed.
>
>I wondered if anyone would make this suggestion.  It's seemingly
>sensible,

...all the more so since most people who argue about this issue never
seem to have read the original article...


> but of course if Searle knew anything about computation we
>wouldn't be discussing the Chinese Room in the first place.

"But if the Strong-AI crowd knew anything about syntax and semantics, we
wouldn't be discussing computer minds in the first place."  Insults can
cut both ways, and rarely advance discussion.   

>  Besides,
>Searle's writings on the subject are voluminous, when the basic
>argument can be stated in a paragraph.  Surely if there is any merit
>to it, it should be possible to state it clearly, succinctly, and in a
>way that takes objections into account nonsophistically.

Again, the basic argument is *not* the Chinese Room, and it *has* been 
expressed in roughly a paragraph, clearly, succinctly, and in a way
that takes objections into account in what I believe to be a satisfactory
manner (I'll leave it to each person to judge if they're sophistic or not).
Simply see the appropriate chapter in _Minds, Brains, and Science_, or read
Searle's article in _Scientific American_.  

>Anyway, what I plan to do is post the following message in the future
>when the Room comes up:
>
>From the FAQ file (that is, of Fruitlessly Argued Quagmires):
>
>Searle's Chinese Room argument appears to be less an argument than an
>opportunity for people to disagree about understanding and semantics.
>At least in this newsgroup, there are few people who are willing to
>defend the Chinese Room argument as such, although there are many who
>think that those who attack the argument are trivializing important
>questions.  The consensus seems to be that it is better to discuss
>those questions directly than to put them in the context of the
>Chinese Room.  I have come to this conclusion because no one was
>willing to accept the following
>
>                    ** CHALLENGE **
>
>[Originally posted March 13, 1992]

Come on, Drew, isn't this a bit, well, petulant?   

[original challenge deleted]

>
>I am still willing to pursue this if anyone else is, but I think the
>suggestion that we move the discussions of understanding and semantics
>out of the Room is a good one.

I agree.  If you *really* want Challenge replies, I am still willing to
work on it, but not until the end of the term.


- michael



