From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert Mon Dec  9 10:48:20 EST 1991
Article 1894 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!mp.cs.niu.edu!rickert
>From: rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.232035.22110@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: 5 Dec 91 23:20:35 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.91Dec5040116@heron.cs.rochester.edu> <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Organization: Northern Illinois University
Lines: 27

In article <1991Dec5.225949.2613@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>(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.

 Clearly assumption (1) is false.  If you don't understand why, you have
never opened a recipe book.

 Where does this get us in understanding Searle's mistakes?  Searle's
argument breaks down elsewhere.

 I suppose I should add that assumption (3) is somewhat questionable too -- I
have seen some pretty crumbly syntax.

-- 
=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
  Northern Illinois Univ.
  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940


