From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz Mon May 25 14:05:02 EDT 1992
Article 5613 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!oz
>From: oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit)
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
In-Reply-To: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 12 May 92 18: 51:02 GMT
Message-ID: <OZ.92May13175341@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
Sender: news@newshub.ccs.yorku.ca (USENET News System)
Organization: York U. Student Information Systems Project
References: <1992May5.195616.28038@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6684@skye.ed.ac.uk>
	<1992May12.155026.18797@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6698@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 22:53:41 GMT

In respose to Andrej Pindor, Jeff Dalton writes:

   >For an argument to be convincing it has to be based on some specifics
   >most people would agree on. What are they in this case? No surprise
   >so many people find Searle's argument vacuous. It is like watching a
   >magician - in the first moment he manages to pull wool over your eyes
   >- you are impressed and convinced that he can violate laws of physics. 
   >After a short reflection you see however that there were so many vague
   >moments that he could have done anything.

   Where, exactly, does he do this?

Does your question imply that you definitely don't see any place where
Searle takes advantage of poorly defined or poorly understood concepts,
or you'd really just like to have someone else list them for you?

  					(Have you read the Reith Lectures
   (aka _Minds, Brains, and programs_) yet, btw?)

The title of the 84 Harvard University Press edition is "Minds, Brains
and Science" and what does that have anything to do with understanding
the CR argument? Does the following say something more about the topic
than what is in already in SCIAM article? 

	... There is no way that the system can get from syntax
	to semantics. I, as the central processing unit have no
	way of figuring out what any of these symbols means; but
	then neither does the whole system. [MBS, pp 34]

or, how about this:

	... conciousness, thoughts, feelings, emotions and all
	the rest of it involve more than a syntax. Those features,
	by definition, the computer is unable to duplicate however
	powerful may be its ability to simulate. The key distinction
	here is between duplication and simulation. And no simulation
	by itself ever constitutes duplication.

You know Jeff, after 100+ articles, I still have no idea what you are
really after.

oz




