From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Jan 16 17:21:45 EST 1992
Article 2720 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <5981@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 14 Jan 92 22:00:40 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> <367@tdatirv.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 23

In article <367@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) 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:
>|>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?

I don't want to be uncooperative, but my time is limited and I
think Searle explains himself fairly well if you read him carefully.
However, you will be disappointed if you think he must start from
unquestionable axioms and prove each step, as if he were doing
Euclidean Geometry.  You may have to read more widely to find out
what he assumes to a sufficient level of detail to satisfy you.


