From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ogicse!milton!forbis Mon Dec  9 10:48:53 EST 1991
Article 1950 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!ogicse!milton!forbis
>From: forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Chinese Room
Message-ID: <1991Dec8.062341.28537@milton.u.washington.edu>
Date: 8 Dec 91 06:23:41 GMT
References: <1991Dec5.191043.10565@psych.toronto.edu> <302@tdatirv.UUCP> <1991Dec7.073933.6258@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 18

I'm still thinking about the letter Mikhail sent me.  I'm not sure it is
polite to consider another line without responding to the letter first but
I will do so none the less.

In article <1991Dec7.073933.6258@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>In article <302@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>
>>[...] (assuming I am right and we get meaning through encoded sense data).
>
>Briefly, you ignore the semantic role of introspection and volition.

I'm not sure I want to consider the semantic role of volition.  Why should I
do so?  Does this have more to do with your concept of "agency"?  Is this
an introduction of willfull non-determinism?  It may be that in my teleology
this is limited to the deity.  Is our discussion of semantics limited to
those who believe in free will?  I really doubt this.

--gary forbis@u.washington.edu


