From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Jan  9 10:34:17 EST 1992
Article 2574 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <5917@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Jan 92 22:06:52 GMT
References: <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.220612.27855@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1991Dec8.193847.7238@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec12.193845.27833@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 10

In article <1991Dec12.193845.27833@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>Multiple realizability is irrelevant here.  The point is that the argument
>I presented is formally identical to Searle's (or close enough), that
>the premises seem to be true, and that the conclusion is obviously
>false.  The natural conclusion is that something is wrong with Searle's
>formal argument.

No, the natural conclusion (if your argument is close enough)
is that there's something wrong with this presentation of Searle's
argument.


