From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!lll-winken!uunet!ogicse!das.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Nov 26 12:32:17 EST 1991
Article 1576 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10621 sci.philosophy.tech:1109 comp.ai.philosophy:1576
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!jupiter!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!lll-winken!uunet!ogicse!das.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle (was Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Comme
Message-ID: <1991Nov25.075639.5861@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 25 Nov 91 12:56:37 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.91Nov24022756@magenta.cs.rochester.edu> <JMC.91Nov24195716@SAIL.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 57
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <JMC.91Nov24195716@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> 
jmc@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (John McCarthy) writes:

>In article <1991Nov24.201501.5845@husc3.harvard.edu> 
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>   In article <94066@brunix.UUCP> 
>   cgy@cs.brown.edu (Curtis Yarvin) writes:

CY:
>   >Unless I am terribly confused about Searle's point in the "Chinese room"
>   >argument, it stems from a simplistic confusion of software and hardware. 

MZ:
>   Not only are you terribly confused about Searle's point; not having
>   bothered to read his article, you are terribly ignorant to argue about it.
>   In "Minds, Brains, and Programs" Searle explicitly says: "let the
>   individual internalise all of these elements of the system. [...]  All the
>   same, he understands nothing of the Chinese, and *a fortiori* neither does
>   the system, because there isn't anything in the system that isn't in him."
>   (See the Boden anthology, p.73.)

JMC:
>Yes, this the crux of the matter where Searle and Zeleny are confused
>and Yarvin isn't.  It is ordinarily customary to use the same name for
>the body of a person and the personality.  As long as there is a
>unique personality associated with the body it does no harm.  In the
>case of multiple personalities (assuming such really exist) or in the
>case of time-sharing computer systems or systems doing interpretation
>(which certainly exist), the distinction must be made.  Different
>personalities and different programs have different *intentional*
>properties.

Different personalities surely have different intentional properties.

JMC:
>In Searle's hypothetical case, the man's ordinary personality is
>interpreting a description the hypothetical Chinese personality that
>has different knowledge from the man's ordinary personality.  There
>should be no difficulty in understanding this.

How do you individuate a personality?

'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139                                     :
: (617) 661-8151                                                     :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'


