From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Tue Mar 24 09:55:36 EST 1992
Article 4446 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese room miscellanea
Message-ID: <44825@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 92 13:58:43 GMT
References: <1992Mar11.231804.13992@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 13

In article <1992Mar11.231804.13992@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> 
	chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes
	[Re: the Chinese Room argument]:

>The discussion here the last few weeks has been a perfect example
>of pure rehash.  (By contrast, the discussion around the end of last
>year managed to touch on some novel points.)

	What is rehash for the long-time contributors and the
professionals, is novel to the newcomers and amateurs.  I have
learned a great deal from watching the pros try to find their
initial points of disagreement, and I appreciate the effort it
takes for them to rehash it for the benefit of others.


