From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun Dec  1 13:06:05 EST 1991
Article 1693 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, again
Message-ID: <5731@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 27 Nov 91 20:52:53 GMT
References: <ROLFL.91Nov26135757@hedda.uio.no>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Distribution: comp
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 16

In article <ROLFL.91Nov26135757@hedda.uio.no> rolfl@hedda.uio.no (Rolf Lindgren) writes:
>I've just handed in a Psych term paper on early language acquisition,
>where I use arguments from John Dore (1985) in Language and communication
>in infancy, Barbara Bates et al. (1987) from A handbook of infant
>development, where I conclude (throwing in a smidgen of Rosch and Bowlby)
>that 
>
>	1 The development of language parallels cognitive development
>	2 The development of language is a social interactional process
>	3 The flaw of Searle's argument is 
>		- The Rule Book is removed from the vital contexts of
>		  social and cognitive development. The ``understanding''
>		  is in the book.

That looks much more like a flaw in strong AI than a flaw is
Searle's argument.


