From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Thu Apr 16 11:33:44 EDT 1992
Article 5017 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: <1992Apr2.181357.25444@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr7.153156.10030@cs.yale.edu> <6587@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Message-ID: <1992Apr9.205245.22620@psych.toronto.edu>
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room
Date: Thu, 9 Apr 1992 20:52:45 GMT

In article <6587@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:

[stuff deleted]

>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.

Indeed, one merely has to look at the responses after the original BBS
article, or Steven Harnad's work, to see that not all AI people think
that Searle is full of it.

- michael


