From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cs.yale Tue Nov 26 12:32:12 EST 1991
Article 1569 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10602 sci.philosophy.tech:1102 comp.ai.philosophy:1569
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!cs.yale
edu!blenko-tom
>From: blenko-tom@CS.YALE.EDU (Tom Blenko)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle (was Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Comme
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.065311.25395@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 91 06:53:11 GMT
References: <94066@brunix.UUCP> <1991Nov24.201501.5845@husc3.harvard.edu> <1991Nov25.023006.27696@cs.rochester.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 27
Nntp-Posting-Host: morphism.systemsz.cs.yale.edu

In article <1991Nov25.023006.27696@cs.rochester.edu> steyn@cs.rochester.edu (Gavin Steyn) writes:
|Well, I've read Searle's article (a couple of times, actually, just to make
|sure I understood his point ), so I guess I'm fit to comment...
|  As I see it, having the guy internalize the system doesn't change the
|the objection at all.  There *is* a part of the system not in the person, 
|namely the understanding embodied by the rules.  (Admittedly, this assertion
|of mine probably needs some defending, but so does Searle's assertion to the
|contrary.  If he can define his problems away *a fortiori*, I can too...).

Yeah, all you need to do is make a case for rules embodying
understanding (I can imagine a case for rocks embodying understanding,
but rules are a much tougher proposition).

Searle provides abundant support for his position (although you
apparently have not read it).

|  Actually, to tell the truth, I fall somewhere into the camp who believes
|Searle's whole argument is irrelevant--if I ever invented a system that acted
|like it understood Chinese, I really wouldn't give a damn whether or not it
|*actually* understood Chinese (whatever actually understanding Chinese may
|mean); I'd just use it for whatever purpose I'd designed it for.

And if it is nonsensical to propose inventing such a system, or to
propose it using a particular approach, wouldn't you prefer to know why
now rather than later?

	Tom


