From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!purdue!bu2.bu.edu!bu.edu!m2c!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Wed Feb 26 12:53:18 EST 1992
Article 3899 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!purdue!bu2.bu.edu!bu.edu!m2c!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <43686@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 20 Feb 92 15:49:42 GMT
References: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb19.013515.26133@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Feb19.172251.7320@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 10

In article <1992Feb19.172251.7320@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>[re Chinese room]
>The systems response [is] one of the more intelligent ones, 
>although Searle replied to it in 1980 in BBS, and again in 1991 in 
>_Scientific American_. So far, I've never heard a good counter-reply.

Douglas Hofstadter provides a counter-reply in "The Minds I."
Dennett says in "Consciousness Explained" that Searle has never
refuted Hofstadter's counter-reply.  So whether there has never been
a "good counter-reply" is a matter of opinion.


