From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utgpu!news-server.ecf!utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Tue Jun 23 13:20:58 EDT 1992
Article 6287 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!torn!utgpu!news-server.ecf!utcsri!rpi!uwm.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Subject: Re: Transducers
Message-ID: <1992Jun17.182829.18441@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
References: <1992Jun17.132117.9273@Princeton.EDU> <60837@aurs01.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 17 Jun 1992 18:28:29 GMT
Lines: 32

In article <60837@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)
>> My arguments about transduction being an essential part of brain
>>...
>> in part on the fact that transduction is sufficient to immunize a
>> system against Searle's Argument, ...

>I still don't see how "transduction" and the TTT imunize a TTT testee
>from Searle's argument, especially in the "chineese android"
>incarnation.

  I believe Harnad is assuming that the transduction is analog, or at
least that the signal on one end of the transducer is analog.  Once you
have an analog signal, it is quite hard to apply a Searle - style argument
and say that the signal is symbolic and/or syntactic.

  Harnad interprets this as implying that analog is essential.  I prefer
to interpret it as persuasive evidence of the bogosity of Searle's argument.
Once you have a signal suitable for applying to a transducer, you must
face the fact that (if you will excuse the paraphrasing):

	anything analog can do,
	  digital can do better.
	digital can do anything
	  better than that.

>In summary, it seems to me that many of the points, both logical and
>empirical, that lead to Stevan Harnad's conclusion are not well 
>established.

 Agreed.



