Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3875 comp.ai:6518
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!wuarchive!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!xanth!mcnc!rti!sheol!throopw
From: throopw@sheol.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai
Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince
Summary: behavioral evidence isn't infallable, merely the best available
Message-ID: <0575@sheol.UUCP>
Date: 8 Apr 90 00:35:59 GMT
References: <c4Rk02dr8dI001@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <23100@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Mar19.153959.6113@sjuphil.uucp> <0541@sheol.UUCP> <1990Mar26.155415.21756@sjuphil.uucp> <0556@sheol.UUCP> <1990Apr3.162019.27598@maths.tcd.ie>
Lines: 16

> From: ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey)
> I think you're right in that people do use functional cues to decide
> whether or not their dog, for example, understands something.
> [...] But that doesn't mean that studying your dog's
> behaviour is not an infallible method of determining whether he understands.

(I think that "not" is not intended... that's the only way I can make
 sense of the ensuing examples.)

I agree that behavioral evidence is not infallable.  In fact, I said as
much in my first posting to this particular resussitation of this subject
line.  I merely claim that it is the only evidence that exists (other
than pure presumption).
--
Wayne Throop <backbone>!mcnc!rti!sheol!throopw or sheol!throopw@rti.rti.org