From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+ Sun Dec  1 13:05:55 EST 1991
Article 1677 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!cis.ohio-state.edu!sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!fb0m+
>From: fb0m+@andrew.cmu.edu (Franklin Boyle)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle (was Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Comme
Message-ID: <kdAy7xW00UhWM25yls@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 91 18:20:45 GMT
Organization: Cntr for Design of Educational Computing, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 20

Max Webb writes:

>> Your claim that the rule system is 'internal' to the person just because
>> they have memorized it is wrong. It is not internalized in a natural
>> language competence sense until you supply mappings to the rest of
>> the mental domains an intelligence has, allowing it to be functionally
>> integrated. When you take _that_ into account, Searles argument falls
>> apart.
>>  
>>>>: Mikhail Zeleny
>> 
>> 	Max

No. Searle's argument doesn't apply.  For the rule system to become
"functionally integrated" means learning Chinese the way any person would
normally learn the language.  That Searle *in the room* can't do that simply
substantiates his claim that he (or any formal symbol processor) would not
understand Chinese.

-Frank


