From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose Tue May 12 15:49:46 EDT 1992
Article 5492 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!kuhub.cc.ukans.edu!spssig.spss.com!markrose
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Message-ID: <1992May08.194328.45011@spss.com>
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Date: Fri, 08 May 1992 19:43:28 GMT
References: <6640@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May5.195616.28038@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6684@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com
Lines: 26

In article <6684@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>   1. Computers can't understand.
>   2. Mechanims M is necessary for understanding.
>   3. Therefore computers lack M.
>
>All I have to add is an argument whose conclusion is (1).  And that's
>exactly what Searle and others have provided.  Of course there might
>be something wrong with those arguments so that they fail to show
>(1).  If so, we can tell by looking at the arguments whose conclusion
>is (1).  It's flaws in those arguments that make them wrong (if they
>are wrong), not our incomplete knowledge of how humans work.
>
>It seems to me that the anti-Searle side must be in pretty severe
>difficulty if instead of pointing out flaws in Searle's reasoning
>they have to try to get the other side to do all the work!

It seems to me that the pro-Searle side must be in pretty severe trouble
if instead of correcting the flaws which the anti-Searle side has pointed
out, they have to complain about the other side's debating tactics.

But this aside, I don't see much substance to your complaint.  It's true
that *if* Searle's argument that computers don't understand is correct,
then his notion of how humans do it is irrelevant.  But he may be wrong.
And a demonstration that his argument implies that humans don't 
understand either would show that his argument was incorrect (and
perhaps make it easier to see exactly where it fails).


