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 17:20:00 EST 1992
Article 2675 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, again
Message-ID: <5968@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 13 Jan 92 21:52:55 GMT
References: <5907@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan08.230618.31038@spss.com> <5952@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan10.220439.26242@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 26

In article <1992Jan10.220439.26242@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <5952@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <1992Jan08.230618.31038@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>
>>>This is not to say it's necessarily wrong.  But until we have some proof
>>>one way or the other, the Chinese Room argument only proves that if you
>>>believe in "causal powers" you don't believe in strong AI, and so what?
>>
>>What do you mean?  Instead of "causal powers" think "whatever
>>it is about the brain that lets it support intentionality/
>>understanding/etc".  
>
>  Give us some instrument which measure intentionality/understanding/etc
>and then perhaps we can be sure we are talking about the same thing.

What does this have to do with believing in causal powers?
People don't agree with Searle because they believe in causal
powers.  The "causal powers" play a very trivial role, as
David Chalmers has pointed out.

>  As long as understanding can only be observed internally to the system
>which is reputed to have understanding, we must assume that there is
>no evidence that such a thing exists.

No evidence that you would accept, perhaps, but not everyone is
so in the grip of verificationism.


