From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!aisb!jeff Tue Jan 28 12:15:08 EST 1992
Article 2966 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aisb!aisb!jeff
>From: jeff@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <1992Jan21.192710.18340@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 21 Jan 92 19:27:10 GMT
References: <5984@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan15.192358.37288@spss.com> <6008@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan20.175243.30222@spss.com>
Sender: news@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Network News Administrator)
Reply-To: jeff@aifh.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: Dept AI, Edinburgh University, Scotland
Lines: 21

In article <1992Jan20.175243.30222@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>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.)

And you say, what, that this is all Searle says on this issue?

>>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.

You might not think so.  But in any case if Searle's arguments were
just bluster, why would anyone be taking them seriously?  I think
that's actually an interesting question.  Why are Searle's arguments
still being debated?

-- jd


