From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Dec  9 10:48:13 EST 1991
Article 1882 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Searle and the Chinese Room 
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <gdCb=YW00UhWQ2lpNp@andrew.cmu.edu> <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 1991 19:10:43 GMT

While all of the discussion here around the Chinese Room example has been
at times inventive, it seems to me that the anti-Searle forces for the
most part miss the distinction that can be drawn between Searle's
*logical argument*, namely, that syntax is not sufficient for semantics, and
his *demonstration*, or *thought experiment*, namely, the Chinese Room.

The strength of Searle's arugment is that, contrary to what some may claim,
it does not rest on any particular way of telling the Chinese Room story.  The
argument simply is that it is impossible to generate semantics from a purely
syntactic system.  This, Searle argues, is a *logical* point, true simply in
virtue of what the words "syntax" and "semantics" mean.  

Thus, to say for example that no modern computer uses table look-up, or that
the Chinese Room would be too slow, or various other attacks of the
*example* fail to counter the *argument*.  What is required from the
supporters of strong AI is an account of why the *logical argument* fails,
that is, an account of how syntax *by itself* can generate semantics.  I know
of no critic of Searle who offers such an account.  Note that merely
gainsaying the point by claiming that syntax *can* generate semantics
(as the Churchland's do) is *not* an argument, but merely contradiction.

It seems to me that, unless strong AI proponents can provide a coherent
explanation of why Searle's logical argument fails, the field as a whole
rests on a profound misunderstanding.

Comments welcome, flames ignored.

- michael



