From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc Tue Jun  9 10:05:52 EDT 1992
Article 5997 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!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!nlc
>From: nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick Cassimatis)
Subject: Re: Grounding and Symbols
Message-ID: <1992Jun1.045419.7411@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <1992May20.181548.7296@cs.ucf.edu> <1992May22.012530.19921@news.media.mit.edu> <1992May25.221736.23048@cs.brown.edu>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 1992 04:54:19 GMT
Lines: 35

In article <1992May25.221736.23048@cs.brown.edu> Allen Renear writes:
>In article <1992May22.012530.19921@news.media.mit.edu> nlc@media.mit.edu (Nick
>Cassimatis) writes:
>
>>A few people (knowing my interest in AI and knowing that I read some
>>philosophy) ask me what's this Chinese Room thing all about, they were
>>completely astonished by my description of it.  One said: "I can't
>>believe people even take bull*$&% like that seriously."  I have to say
>>that had that been my first introduction to philosiphy, it would have
>>been a long time until I read anything else.
>>
>
>As sociology I wouldn't trust these casual impressions much. As it happens the
>people I know who have been naive with respect to *both* AI and philosophy of
>mind -- eg freshman college students -- are far more apt to feel that
>the Chinese Room is a needlessly elaborate criticism of what is obviously
>false! They will say exactly what you quote about strong AI, functionalism, &c.
>
>It goes without saying of course that such reactions are completely irrelevant 
>to the truth or plausibility of various theories of behavior, consciousness,
>etc., whether empirical or philosophical. What people say, even friends, just
>doesn't matter.
>
>We all know that. But these anecdotes are also irrelevant (though on
>methodological and not logical grounds) to  general conclusions about the
>beliefs that people do hold and the empirical (sociologically speaking)
>plausibility of certain claims, counterexamples, etc. 

I completely agree that such reactions are irrelevent with regards to
the truth of a theory.  But I do think that an occasional anectodote
is not a complete waste of time.  It is nice to step back from your
thought from time to time and make sure that you are not flying off on
a moot tangent.  Such reactions are an occasional signal (though not
nearly sufficient conditions for the belief) that something like this
is going on.


