Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!yeshua.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!ira
From: ira@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Ira Woodhead)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <Cz092G.2Mw@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Centre for Cognitive Science, Edinburgh, UK
References: <38tqh6$5qk@percy.cs.bham.ac.uk> <39ofgk$7rb@news-rocq.inria.fr> <39oqc8$9gb@news-rocq.inria.fr>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 1994 14:47:02 GMT
Lines: 16
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:94715 comp.ai.philosophy:21839 sci.philosophy.meta:14612

In article <39oqc8$9gb@news-rocq.inria.fr> ziane@monica.inria.fr (Mikal Ziane (Univ. Paris 5 and INRIA) ) writes:
>
>By the way, does anybody think that the Chinese room example could be improved,
>not to prove that a machine cannot be intelligent of course, but to clearly
>point out limitations of a purely behaviorist definition of AI like
>Turing's.
>
>Mikal


Contained in a truly devastating exposition of the Chinese Room
thought experiment is a reformulation of it to a generalized class of
thought experiments, in Hofstadter and Dennett's The Mind's I.(1982 I
think) Highly recommended.

ira
