From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Tue Apr  7 23:24:30 EDT 1992
Article 4958 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: The Challenge
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu> <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr7.152136.9857@cs.yale.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr7.202815.29789@psych.toronto.edu>
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Date: Tue, 7 Apr 1992 20:28:15 GMT

In article <1992Apr7.152136.9857@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>  In article <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>  >Come on, Drew, isn't this a bit, well, petulant?   
>
>Referring to this paragraph of mine:
>
>  >>Anyway, what I plan to do is post the following message in the future
>  >>when the Room comes up:
>  >>
>  >>From the FAQ file (that is, of Fruitlessly Argued Quagmires):
>  >>
>  >>Searle's Chinese Room argument appears to be less an argument than an
>  >>opportunity for people to disagree about understanding and semantics.
>  >>At least in this newsgroup, there are few people who are willing to
>  >>defend the Chinese Room argument as such, although there are many who
>  >>think that those who attack the argument are trivializing important
>  >>questions.  The consensus seems to be that it is better to discuss
>  >>those questions directly than to put them in the context of the
>  >>Chinese Room.  I have come to this conclusion because no one was
>  >>willing to accept the following
>  >>
>  >>                    ** CHALLENGE **
>
>  >[original challenge deleted]
>
>I crafted this paragraph to avoid petulance.  I would welcome
>suggestions on how to edit.  I am sincere in wanting to have a message
>we can post to quickly acquaint newcomers to the newsgroup with the
>state of play on the Chinese Room.
>

My apologies for the word choice, Drew.  It was, upon reflection, inappropriate.
However, what I was taking exception to was the claim that "...no one was
willing to accept the...challenge".  I *am* willing to work on it, and I
imagine I could convince Chris Green to do so as well.  I should note again,
though, that I am probably not the best person to defend the Chinese Room,
since I am no longer convinced that is satisfactorally meets the Systems Reply
(here Chris would be a much better candidate).  I didn't see my honesty as
being evasive - heck, I thought those who care about these things would be
pleased!

- michael
 



