From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Mar 24 09:56:12 EST 1992
Article 4496 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ub!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese room miscellanea
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.022115.11185@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 17 Mar 92 02:21:15 GMT
References: <1992Mar11.231804.13992@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <44825@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Mar13.204017.25480@cs.yale.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 38

In article <1992Mar13.204017.25480@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:

>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 **

This sounds like it could be fun, though I have serious doubts about
whether it will get any further than the usual "The system
understands" versus "That's ridiculous!", though.  The anti-CR people
will no doubt be frustrated by the inability of the pro-CR'ers to give
a concrete argument against the systems reply (indeed I think that
both Dalton and Gemar have conceded that it's an open question, while
the best Green has been able to come up with is talk of "ad hoc
assumptions", "auxiliary hypotheses" and "flagging research programs"
 -- i.e. "That's ridiculous!"); while the pro-CR people will be
frustrated by a lack of positive reasons to actually accept that the
system has a mind, over and above a simple assumption of functionalism
or behaviourism.

>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.

This sounds OK, though we might expect some internal disagreements;
e.g. anti-CR reasons for accepting the systems reply vary from
McCullough's behaviourism through your strong functionalism to my
weak functionalism.  Still, no doubt we could cobble something
together, and I'll be part of it if the others are willing.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


