From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!news Sun May 31 19:04:08 EDT 1992
Article 5905 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!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!brunix!news
>From: Allen Renear
Subject: Re: Grounding and Symbols
Message-ID: <1992May25.221736.23048@cs.brown.edu>
Sender: news@cs.brown.edu
Organization: Brown University  CIS
References: <78417@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992May20.170019.26095@kbsw1> <1992May20.181548.7296@cs.ucf.edu> <1992May22.012530.19921@news.media.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 May 1992 22:17:36 GMT
Lines: 27

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. 



