From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Thu Jan 16 17:20:12 EST 1992
Article 2691 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <367@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 13 Jan 92 22:41:59 GMT
References: <5826@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1991Dec11.180924.37884@spss.com> <5907@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan08.230618.31038@spss.com> <5952@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 19

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:
|>To make things clearer let me clarify that I am attacking Searle on two
|>points.  His arguments depend on two dubious assumptions, namely
|>1. that a simulation of a mind is not a mind; and
|>2. that computers are incapable of semantics.
|
|I don't think his arguments employ these as _assumptions_ at all;
|certainly not 2.

O.K. then, what *are* his assumptions?

Just what axioms does he use in concluding that the Chinese Room does not
understand Chinese?  And how does he generalize from there to all possible
robots, digital servomechanisms, and digital transducers?
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



