From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Sun Dec  1 13:06:16 EST 1991
Article 1713 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!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room, from a different perspective
Keywords: ai philosophy searle expert system
Message-ID: <291@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 27 Nov 91 20:51:59 GMT
References: <1991Nov11.011527.28514@midway.uchicago.edu> <70105@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <5698@skye.ed.ac.uk> <71692@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 17

In article <71692@nigel.ee.udel.edu> lintz@cis.udel.edu (Brian Lintz) writes:
|(If Searle can have Chinese rules, we can have neuron chips).

Actually, I could easily believe in neuron chips - certainly more easily
than I could believe in Searle's Chinese Rule Book.  I suspect that as soon
as biologists have completely characterized the operationally relevant
properties of neurons it will be immediately possible to build a digital
neuron.

However, I do not think that a static rule set can possibly capture the
full range of human competence in linguistics.  Thus, I tend to dismiss
Searle's argument on the grounds that it is based on an unreasonable
model of AI.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



