From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Thu Feb 20 15:22:08 EST 1992
Article 3868 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.172251.7320@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb19.013515.26133@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 17:22:51 GMT

In article <1992Feb19.013515.26133@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>
> All the AI people have done is try to point out that the question
>"Does the Chinese room understand Chinese?" may be completely unrelated to the
>question "Do the people in the Chinese room understand Chinese?"
>
I can only assume that you haven't been reading the Searle debate as it
has been intermitently held on this and other newsgroups for at least the
last three years. What you point out -- essentially the motivation behind
the "system response" -- is only one of a wide array of attacks on the
Chinese room. The systems response one of the more intelligent ones, 
although Searle replied to it in 1980 in BBS, and again in 1991 in 
_Scientific American_. So far, I've never heard a good counter-reply.

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


