From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Sun Dec  1 13:06:23 EST 1991
Article 1724 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room, from a different perspective
Keywords: ai philosophy searle expert system
Message-ID: <5742@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Nov 91 18:47:09 GMT
Article-I.D.: skye.5742
References: <1991Nov11.011527.28514@midway.uchicago.edu> <70105@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <5698@skye.ed.ac.uk> <71692@nigel.ee.udel.edu> <291@tdatirv.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 12

In article <291@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>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.

What do you think a program is?  The "unreasonable model" is just the
model of string AI that Searle is attempting to refute.

Before you argue that programs are not static, consider that 
the static rules might well include an interpreter for whatever
progrmming language you prefer.


