From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Jan 21 09:27:39 EST 1992
Article 2944 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Virtual Person?
Message-ID: <6028@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 21 Jan 92 00:35:01 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.194359.1160@cs.yale.edu> <1992Jan16.204346.903@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <60287@aurs01.UUCP> <1992Jan18.222329.23953@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 20

In article <1992Jan18.222329.23953@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <60287@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>>Thus, I think David's "improvement" isn't one really: Drew was
>>encompasing "the system wouldn't aquire additional minds" because he's
>>already up to The Virtual Person Gambit, while David's improvement
>>only applies to The Systems Reply.
>
>The systems reply and the "virtual person gambit" are of a piece, as
>far as I'm concerned -- they're internal and external versions of the
>same thing.  The "virtual person" is just a "system" that happens to
>be located inside a skull.  Either way, Searle says "the human doesn't
>understand", the AI advocate says "but the system does", and Searle
>says "but that's ridiculous".

I don't think the virtual person works all that well in any case.
If the VP is in Searle's head (as when he memorizes the program),
then perhaps it's benefiting from the "causal powers" of Searle's
brian.  And if the VP is the system as a whole, then it's pretty
clear that it's just the systems reply under a different name.


