From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!uokmax!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Tue Jan 21 09:27:26 EST 1992
Article 2919 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!uokmax!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com>
Message-ID: <1992Jan17.231329.10462@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 92 23:13:29 GMT

>From article <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com>, by daryl@oracorp.com:
> Jeff Dalton writes:
> 
>> What I am saying in this thread is that Searle thinks the behavior is
>> not possible without understanding.
> 
> If Searle actually believes that, then he is in complete agreement
> with the Strong AI crowd, in spite of his Chinese Room argument!
> 
> 
> Barbara is right: if Searle actually believes that behavior is not
> possible without understanding, then his argument is pointless, since
> he would, in that case, be in agreement with Strong AI.
> 
> Daryl McCullough
> ORA Corp.
> Ithaca, NY

  The assumption that you are making, that Searle brings up immediately
in Minds Brains & Science, is that the understanding and the behavior
are casually connected in a direct way.  In a more logical and precise
statemens, your question should have been "...behavior is not possible
unless preceeded by understanding."  In this case, you are correct that
Searle would be strong AI.  But he isn't because he doesn't view the
mind, understanding, etc as a direct causual structure.  From example,
from Minds Brains & Science "Mental phenonmena, all mental phenomena whether
conscious or unsconscious, visual or auditory, pains, tickles, itches, 
thoughts, indeed, all of our mental life are caused by processes goin 
on in the brain."(P.18)  "If mental and physical phenomena have cause
and effect relationshps, how can one be a feature of the other?...
get a more sophisticated concept of causation."(p.20)  He then 
gives and example of water.  "Similarly, the liquidity of the water
is explained by the nature of the interactios between the H2O molecules."
In otherwords, as he states later on, we can not reach into water and pull
out a molecule and say "Hey this one's wet!"  Because wetness is a property
of the interactions of water molecules.  Therefore, "I think the
clearest way of stating this point is to say the surface feature is both
casued by the behavior of micro-elements, and at the same time is realised
in the system that is made up of the micro-elements."(p.21)  So understanding
goes hand in hand with behavior and they both rely on eachother.  
   Your arguement assumes that one takes precedence over the other.  Which 
is why Searle is so negative toward traditional (or strong) AI approaches.
You are trapped a classical view of causality, becaue of strong AI's insistence
on logical pattern formation and direct cause-effect, that this sort of
arguementation misleads you.  Be careful about being to classical in 
interpretation of Searle; he is about as modern as they get.  

BCnya,
  Charles Onstott

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu

"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------



