From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!dirtydog.ima.isc.com!ispd-new Tue Mar 24 09:57:31 EST 1992
Article 4615 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!cs.uoregon.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!spdcc!dirtydog.ima.isc.com!ispd-new
sserver!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com (Daryl McCullough)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese room miscellanea
Message-ID: <1992Mar19.180323.7242@oracorp.com>
Date: 19 Mar 92 18:03:23 GMT
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 18

mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:

[Challenge for comp.ai.philosophy to produce the definitive Chinese
Room argument and refutation]

Great idea! Imagine, actually trying to accomplish something in a
newsgroup. Are the pro-Searle people game?

However, I have a comment about the order of the arguments. The
Chinese Room argument is itself a rebuttal (of Strong AI), so perhaps
the Strong AI position should come *before* the Chinese Room argument.
Either way is fine with me, but with the CR argument coming first, it
is necessary both to present the Strong AI position, and to refute it
in the same essay.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


