From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Mon Mar  9 18:34:34 EST 1992
Article 4199 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!sdd.hp.com!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <44170@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 92 16:59:25 GMT
References: <1992Feb25.175012.8924@oracorp.com> <1992Feb28.022105.28548@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Feb28.165550.13014@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar2.031342.27459@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 15

In article <1992Mar2.031342.27459@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
	chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

>If the Chinese room is to be discussed at all, I suggest that
>discussants be required to give some (hopefully novel) *argument* in
>support of their position, over and above the usual vehement
>assertions. [...] I gave such an argument a while ago
>with the "fading qualia" thought-experiment (it should be clear
>enough how this applies to the memorization case).

	It is not clear to me, which maybe only shows I didn't
pay close enough attention to your original argument.  Although
it is not fair to request endless recapitulations, a pre'cis
of your fading qualia argument as applied to the system memorizer
might help raise the level of discussion.


