From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Apr 16 11:33:30 EDT 1992
Article 4993 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.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: <6587@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 Apr 92 18:51:38 GMT
References: <1992Apr1.150750.9618@cs.yale.edu> <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr7.153156.10030@cs.yale.edu>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 35

In article <1992Apr7.153156.10030@cs.yale.edu> mcdermott-drew@CS.YALE.EDU (Drew McDermott) writes:
>  >> but of course if Searle knew anything about computation we
>  >>wouldn't be discussing the Chinese Room in the first place.
>  >
>  >"But if the Strong-AI crowd knew anything about syntax and semantics, we
>  >wouldn't be discussing computer minds in the first place."  Insults can
>  >cut both ways, and rarely advance discussion.   
>
>That's true.  Let me try to state the point noninsultingly: I have a
>lot of respect for Searle, when he sticks to his home turf of the
>"logic of introspection" (a phrase I just made up).  But it's obvious
>that he has never taken a course on operating systems, and that his
>style of rebutting arguments against computationalists would be quite
>different if he had.

Despite Zeleny's reply to this, I think McDermott is right: Searle's
style of rebuttal probably would be different.  Whether his conclusions
would be different is a another matter (and I think it's actually
the issue of consclusions Zeleny was addressing). 

I'm even somewhat sympathetic to the claim that's sometimes made that
Searle doesn't understand the systems reply; but I think we need to be
cautious.  For instance, some people seemed to think that Searle
didn't understand that there could be emergent properties, but if
you look at the first Reith lecture I think it will be clear that
it isn't so.

However, I do not agree with McDermott's earlier and stronger claim
that if Searle knew anything about computation we wouldn't be discussing
the CR in the first place.  Well, it's at least logically possible
that if _Searle_ knew anything about computation ... But it's certainly
not the case that everyone who knows about computation finds the Room
argument worthless.

-- jd


