Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!whitten
From: whitten@netcom.com (David Whitten)
Subject: Re: The Chinese Room argument by Searle
Message-ID: <whittenDJst4G.4EI@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
References: <4asq01$av6@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> <4b4777$msa@pipe1.nyc.pipeline.com>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 1995 20:05:03 GMT
Lines: 25
Sender: whitten@netcom20.netcom.com

: On 15 Dec 1995 in article <Re: The Chinese Room argument by Searle>, 'Tim
: Menzies <timm>' wrote: 
:  
: >i hope that this thread will not grow into yet another long long long 
: >debate about the chinese room problem. i watched one such debate in 1986. 

Not to attempt to recap an old debate, but did it include the question of
how the room was supposed to learn?

I can still see that even if the room had a complex set of rules of the 
type "if you see characters 235, 319, 214 and 1024, 
return characters 215 and 212", etc.
(which would correspond to:)
A Chinese outside the room could write a message and slip it under the
door: "What color is the sky?" Moments later a message would appear:
"Look up and see for yourself".  

that you still need to handle things like a message 
"my name is Running-Water." and then a few minutes later "what is my name?"

The Chinese Room analogy still doesn't deal with real issues like
how memory is organised, how learning occurs, or what it means to emulate
or re-create intelligence.

David (Whitten@netcom.com) (214) 437-5255
