From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umeecs!umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!bronze!chalmers Tue Jan 28 12:16:54 EST 1992
Article 3085 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!umeecs!umn.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!cica!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1992Jan23.230213.5114@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <6033@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan22.201656.22109@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Jan23.222251.24486@aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 92 23:02:13 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <1992Jan23.222251.24486@aisb.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

>You get a cake, or not, depending on the ingrediants.  So
>you get crumbliness or not, depending on the ingrediants.
>The analogy would be that you get intentionality or not,
>depending on the ingrediants (eg, whether it's a brain or
>a sun4).

I've gone over this a zillion times, and I have nothing more
to add.  (In the analogy, the ingredients of the cake are
analogous to the causal properties of the system -- both being
determined by the program/recipe.  Whether, in fact, causal
properties are sufficient for mentality is a separate question.)

>So there could be human understanding and this other kind, which
>are not the same?  Or the differences are all nonessential?

The differences at the mental level are inessential.

-- 
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."


