From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!think.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!mcdermott-drew Tue Mar 24 09:55:38 EST 1992
Article 4448 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!swrinde!mips!think.com!yale.edu!cs.yale.edu!mcdermott-drew
>From: mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese room miscellanea
Summary: Escaping the Room
Keywords: Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1992Mar13.204017.25480@cs.yale.edu>
Date: 13 Mar 92 20:40:17 GMT
References: <1992Mar11.231804.13992@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <44825@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Sender: news@cs.yale.edu (Usenet News)
Organization: Yale University Computer Science Dept., New Haven, CT 06520-2158
Lines: 59
Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ai.cs.yale.edu


  In article <44825@dime.cs.umass.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
  >
  >	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.

The pros are getting tired of all this, at least I am.  It has been
suggested before that we generate a FAQ list for this newsgroup, which
doesn't seem feasible.  I tried a few months ago to state exactly what
the Chinese Room argument was, and thought I was getting somewhere,
but then everyone seemed to suffer amnesia on the subject.  So let me
try again, with the following

                    ** CHALLENGE **

I suggest that the pro-CR people (e.g., Gemar, Green, Dalton) produce
The Canonical Version of the Chinese Room argument.  They've heard the
Systems Reply, so the Canonical Version should be written so that it
anticipates the Systems Reply.  (Daryl McCullough's summary of it says
everything that needs to be said, so start from there.)

After they've produced a draft, they publish it on this newsgroup.
The anti-CR people (e.g., me, Chalmers, McCullough) write a
refutation, and publish that.  Now, here's where it gets novel.  The
refutation must be preceded by the original argument.  It may quote
from it, but the whole original argument must appear.  Much of the
confusion surrounding the Chinese Room stems from the fact that points
are made five levels down in reductios that innocent bystanders take
to be standalone claims.

With this refutation in hand, the pro-CR group can then generate a
revised argument that in their opinion gets around the refutation.
They are allowed to revise the initial argument, but *not* to tack on
a rebuttal to the refutation.  The final product should not look like
a conversation; the argument may quote from the refutation, but must
do so by some anticipatory stylistic device.  ("Our opponents say
below that ..., but obviously ....")  The anti-CR group then gets to
revise the refutation, but again can only publish the latest version
of the refutation preceded by the newest version of the argument.  The
process stops when each side thinks that no further progress can be
made, at which point each side declares itself the winner.  The next
time someone raises the Chinese Room, we can post a copy of this
Definitive Version of the controversy to the newsgroup and be done
with it.  I would be willing to submit the result to some forum like
SIGART Bulletin, or some other oddball periodical.

The lists of names above are not meant to be exclusive, but I think
one person on each side should be chosen to be Editor, and the three
anti-CR people above would be my nominees.  (In other words, I will
volunteer if no one else will.)  The Editor solicits ideas in response
to the latest round from the other side, and consolidates them into a
whole, that any contributor is of course free to dissent from.

How about it?

                                             -- Drew McDermott


