From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Apr  7 23:24:25 EDT 1992
Article 4949 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Challenge
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Message-ID: <6569@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 6 Apr 92 19:31:25 GMT
References: <centaur.700790865@cc.gatech.edu> <6419@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 33

In article <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>I have been mildly surprised by the reaction to my "challenge"
>regarding the Chinese Room.  It turns out that no one is willing
>actually to defend the argument.  Everyone actually wants to talk
>about something else:
>
>  In article <6419@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

I'll respond briefly since I'm mentioned explicitly.  
Many of the attacks on the Chinese Room argument, and Searle
generally, are based on misunderstandings of what Searle has said.
I think there's something to be said for trying to straighten
out these misunderstandings, and I have been willing to try to
"defend" the argument in that sense.  (I've also been willing
to argue a number of other points ...)

However, I can't continue to spend as much time with this newsgroup
as I did recently, and this particular issue (which I take to be,
roughly, coming up with the argument Searle should have made) is not
one of the issues I find most interesting.

Still, for what it's worth, I did say what I thought the CR argument
was a while back, and even said why I thought Searle hadn't proved his
case.  I could always post the article again...

>I am still willing to pursue this if anyone else is, but I think the
>suggestion that we move the discussions of understanding and semantics
>out of the Room is a good one.

I find Dennet's idea that the Chinese Room is an "intuition pump"
(rather than an argument) attractive.

-- jd


