From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!psinntp!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Tue Mar 24 09:57:37 EST 1992
Article 4624 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!psinntp!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <6705@pkmab.se>
Date: 18 Mar 92 20:01:28 GMT
References: <1992Mar14.213045.21776@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar15.011107.7828@news.media.mit.edu> <1992Mar16.171520.15584@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 18

In article <1992Mar16.171520.15584@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
> What troubles me is a lot of CompSci types sitting around ragging on Searle
>without knowing what syntax and semantics are.

I don't see that one has to say anything about syntax and semantics to
show that Searle's Chinese Room fails to disprove Strong AI. As far as
I know, the Chinese Room does not use any claim about syntax and semantics
as a premise; rather, it tries to prove a particular position about them
(or about something very close).

Thus I think you are over-reacting.

(Trying to actually prove Strong AI, is another thing.)

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


