From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Mon Dec  9 10:48:19 EST 1991
Article 1893 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room 
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Indiana University
References: <gdCb=YW00UhWQ2lpNp@andrew.cmu.edu> <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Dec 91 22:59:49 GMT
Lines: 22

In article <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

>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.

(1) Recipes are completely syntactic.

(2) Cakes are crumbly.

(3) Syntax is not sufficient for crumbliness.

(4) Therefore implementing the appropriate recipe cannot be sufficient
    to produce a cake.

Reflection on why this argument is fallacious should lead one to
uncover the fallacy in Searle's analogous argument.

-- 
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."


