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!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Jan 16 17:19:45 EST 1992
Article 2649 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!wupost!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: <5955@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Jan 92 20:39:16 GMT
References: <gdCb=YW00UhWQ2lpNp@andrew.cmu.edu> <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <44801@mimsy.umd.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 12

In article <44801@mimsy.umd.edu> kohout@cs.umd.edu (Robert Kohout) writes:
>Why do people insist upon putting the entire burden of the philosophy
>of mind upon a group of people who should be more properly be classified
>as engineers than philosphers? Personally, I fail to see how the
>Chinese Room argument impinges upon AI practioners in any way whatsoever.
>If I can build the room, I really don't care whether or not you are
>going to say that it (or the computer which implements it) REALLY
>understands. That is useless hairsplitting, as far as I'm concerned.

Exellent.  However, some people in AI make claims in the
area of philosophy of mind and so evidently do care about
the useless hairsplitting.


