From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Jan 21 09:27:15 EST 1992
Article 2898 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <1992Jan19.213507.11148@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 19 Jan 92 21:35:07 GMT
Article-I.D.: bronze.1992Jan19.213507.11148
References: <383@tdatirv.UUCP> <o2wseB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 23

In article <o2wseB3w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:

>Everyone seems to be ignoring the fact that the program
>(presumably in an improved and more powerful version) which Searle
>assumed was being implemented by the Chinese Room was itself
>essentially an indexed lookup table, Roger Schank's table of
>scripts -- in particular Searle discussed a restaurant script.
>
>Since Schank suggests, quite plausibly, that much of our daily,
>regularized, mundane behavior -- until some interrupt occurs, and
>often even then -- is in fact taken from such a lookup table, it
>really isn't "cheating" for a computer to use one.

1. Nothing essential to Searle's argument rides on the program's being
Schankian, as Searle himself makes clear.

2. Even Schank's "look-up tables" are far, far more sophisticated than
the brute-force mechanism described earlier.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


