From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Mon Mar  9 18:33:32 EST 1992
Article 4107 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.015825.27054@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <1992Feb25.191102.16801@oracorp.com> <1992Feb26.082540.9185@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 01:58:25 GMT
Lines: 19

In article <1992Feb26.082540.9185@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>You might ask Chalmers why he doesn't make an official published statement
>of his "crumbly cakes" answer...

Have patience.  I have other priorities right now, but once _Consciousness
and Cognition_ is finished, I might tack on some material on the Chinese
room as a bonus chapter.  It might be a nice application of the fading
qualia argument.  The "Crumbly Cake" thing isn't an answer in its own
right, of course, but is just a way of highlighting the difference
between programs (pure syntax) and their implementations (full-blooded
causal systems), so that the question of whether "syntax is sufficient
for semantics" (whatever that might mean) is more or less irrelevant to 
the truth of strong AI.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


