From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose Tue Jan 21 09:26:30 EST 1992
Article 2813 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uwm.edu!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Subject: Re: Virtual Person?
Message-ID: <1992Jan17.002135.32955@spss.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1992 00:21:35 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.040733.23764@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jan16.054723.16068@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Jan16.194359.1160@cs.yale.edu>
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 35

In article <1992Jan16.194359.1160@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU 
(Drew McDermott) writes:
>  Assume: There exists a program P such that a computational process
>carrying out P would constitute a mind.  ("Strong AI")
>
>  Assume: A human being could play the role of computer, and carry out
>N such computational processes (albeit slowly).  N might be 1, but it
>needn't be.
>
>  Then: N new minds would come into existence (by assumption 1)
>
>  But: The human wouldn't report acquiring N additional minds.  In
>particular, one of the predicted minds might understand Chinese, while
>the human might not.
>
>  Which is a contradiction.
>
>  Therefore one of our assumptions is wrong.  The second assumption is
>uncontroversial, so the first must be at fault.  QED
>
>Does everyone agree that this is Searle's argument in a nutshell?
>Getting this kind of agreement would be an achievement. 

I think it summarizes Searle's point of view before the systems reply has
been made.  

The human plays the role of the CPU in the Chinese Room.  I'm willing to
believe that Searle has proved that CPUs are not intelligent.  Does anyone 
seriously maintain that the *CPU* running an AI program becomes intelligent?

The systems reply states that the N new minds would be acquired by the system,
not by the human, thus removing the contradiction.

Now Searle has to modify his argument; and he has done so, tho' not (to my
mind) in any way that restores its ability to hold water. 


