From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!decwrl!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!burt Wed Oct 14 14:58:31 EDT 1992
Article 7201 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai:4727 comp.ai.neural-nets:4660 comp.ai.philosophy:7201 sci.psychology:4795
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!decwrl!atha!aupair.cs.athabascau.ca!burt
>From: burt@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca (Burt Voorhees)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.neural-nets,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.psychology
Subject: Re: Human intelligence vs. Machine intelligence
Message-ID: <burt.718784231@aupair.cs.athabascau.ca>
Date: 11 Oct 92 06:17:11 GMT
References: <1992Sep23.162606.13811@udel.edu> <BvM75v.AEF@eis.calstate.edu>
Sender: news@cs.athabascau.ca
Followup-To: comp.ai
Lines: 36

>Burt Voorhees writes [in response to my impression that
>searle and penrose are ignored]:

>     Really?  I was just resently sent a list of 38 references to papers
>   about the Chinese Room, all in major technical journals, with an appended
>   comment that this was only a partial listing of all the papers which have
>   been written on this.  The fact that every AI proponent who srites about
>   machine intelligence seems to feel it necessary to try and refute the
>   Searle argument to me indicates .. blah blah...

>Those are probably the refs Chalmers have posted in the past. They are
>fun to read, and pay special attention to the "systems reply", a reply
>Searle appearently doesn't want to understand. It is also worth noting
>that fifty-sixty (if that many) articles in a decade does not add upto
>"every AI proponent who writes about machine intelligence".

  Sorry, not Chalmers references at all.  They come from a friend in
San Francisco who is cqarrying out an argumentation analysis of the entire
machine intelligence dispute.  Who argues what, who supports who and who
attempts to refute who, etc.  His work will be out as a wall chart in a
year or so.
  It's not that Searle doesn't understand the systems reply - he just doesn't
buy it.  I'd guess that he just doesn't accept the behaviorist assumption
at the basis of the Turing test.  The whole point of the Chinese Room is
that you can pass all the behavioral tests you want but if there ain't
nobody home, there ain't nobody home.

>     As for Penrose, I think that most AI people just don't know how to
>   reply to him.  Other than attempting to down play his book, of course.

>OF course! What else could it possibly be? :-]

  Of course.  :)
bv
>Information is in the mind of  |  internet: oz@nexus.yorku.ca
>the beholder. - R. Jackendoff  |  phone:[416] 736 2100 x33976


