From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose Tue Jan 21 09:27:33 EST 1992
Article 2932 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!mips!pacbell.com!att!linac!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1992Jan20.175243.30222@spss.com>
Date: 20 Jan 92 17:52:43 GMT
References: <5984@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan15.192358.37288@spss.com> <6008@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 11
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <6008@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>What bluster about how "obvious" they are?  

"It seems obvious that a simulation of cognition will similarly not produce
the effects of the neurobiology of cognition."  (Sci Am article, p. 29.)

>Well, I'm beginning to think the Sci Am article may not be a good
>place to go if one wants to understand Searle.

Very well, I will hunt up the Minds, Brains book, to see if Searle is any
more convincing there.


