From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!news.smith.edu!orourke Wed Oct 14 14:58:36 EDT 1992
Article 7209 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!torn!cs.utexas.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!news.smith.edu!orourke
>From: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Subject: Re: Simulated Brain
Message-ID: <1992Oct11.172208.9206@sophia.smith.edu>
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
References: <740@trwacs.fp.trw.com> <BARRY.92Oct6151915@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu> <26609@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 17:22:08 GMT
Lines: 17

In article <26609@castle.ed.ac.uk> cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
>In article <BARRY.92Oct6151915@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu> barry@chezmoto.ai.mit.edu (Barry Kort) writes:
>
>>Daniel Dennett ... saw no reason
>>why intelligence and consciousness could not reside in a sufficiently
>>powerful computer processor.
>
>I'm sure he intended the processor to be running suitable software :-)
>Given that rider, this is hardly controversial. Contrary to popular
>opinion, even Searle of Chinese Roon fame agrees with that, as he made
                                                       ^^^^
>plain in the Jan 1990 edition of Scientific American.

It seems to me that Dennett and Searle are in irreconcilable opposition 
over this issue, as Dennett made clear in "Consciousness Explained" [p.439].  
Perhaps therefore you could make the referent of "that" above more clear:  
what do Dennett and Searle agree on? 


