From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose Thu Apr 16 11:33:46 EDT 1992
Article 5020 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Challenge
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1992Apr09.193826.40089@spss.com>
Date: 9 Apr 92 19:38:26 GMT
References: <6742@pkmab.se> <1992Apr7.223711.18902@psych.toronto.edu> <6586@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 20
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <6586@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>Well, is the AI side willing to agree that the systems reply should
>not be "the system understands", because no one has shown that the
>system does understand?

I'd be willing to say "That the man in the CR doesn't understand doesn't
prove that the system doesn't understand; and if anything understands
in the CR, it's the system."  But it's not very snappy.

>(NB my position is that the CR fails to show the impossibility
>of strong ai but that it's useful nonetheless, in part because
>it shows we should question the Turing Test.)

If you want a philosophical objection to the Turing Test I don't see how
you can beat the roomful of monkeys.

I'm not sure what the CR proves, except that CPUs can't think.  Of course,
maybe this is a point that needs making, given the frequency that people
talk about "computers" being intelligent.  (It may also be effective
as an attack on Schank.)


