From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!cam Tue Mar 24 09:57:27 EST 1992
Article 4609 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!cam
>From: cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <19325@castle.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 19 Mar 92 18:58:25 GMT
References: <1992Mar14.213045.21776@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar16.224423.29809@psych.toronto.edu> <centaur.700790865@cc.gatech.edu>
Organization: Edinburgh University
Lines: 16

In article <centaur.700790865@cc.gatech.edu> centaur@terminus.gatech.edu (Anthony G. Francis) writes:

>To Searle, no computer can have semantics, and therefore
>no computer, _no matter what its functionality, no matter how close
>behavior is to a humans, no matter =how= indistinguishable it is from
>you or I in any behavioral observable_, can ever be considered intelligent.

No, Searle does _not_ claim this. He is quite happy with the idea that
a computer could have semantics. He merely insists that it could not
have semantics merely as a consequence of running the right program.
So he doesn't junk functionalism, just a certain kind of
implementation.
-- 
Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205


