From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose Tue Nov 19 11:10:05 EST 1991
Article 1314 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!ncar!uchinews!spssig!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room Variant
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.163630.20597@spss.com>
Date: 14 Nov 91 16:36:30 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.170856.21527@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Nov12.131428.4850@osceola.cs.ucf.edu>
Organization: SPSS, Inc.
Lines: 6
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1991Nov12.131428.4850@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> clarke@next1 (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>That is, the bare rules of computation plus any finite set of additional 
>usage/correspondence rules are not sufficient for an understanding of number. 

What is sufficient, then?  An infinite set of rules?  Or, if something else
entirely is needed, what is it?


