Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3914 comp.ai:6583
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uunet!zds-ux!gerry
From: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai
Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince
Message-ID: <265@zds-ux.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 90 18:14:27 GMT
References: <1990Apr11.173241.6428@maths.tcd.ie>
Reply-To: gerry@zds-ux.UUCP (Gerry Gleason)
Followup-To: talk.philosophy.misc
Organization: Zenith Data Systems
Lines: 15

In article <1990Apr11.173241.6428@maths.tcd.ie> ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey) writes:
>Well, chess came up as a convenient example. Replace with Tic-Tac-Toe
>and everything becomes reasonable. I expect that we'll keep the chess
>example, however, because *in principle* it is the same as Tic-Tac-Toe
>(ie. the ideas involved in understanding chess are the same as those
>involved in understanding Tic-Tac-Toe... probably... oh dear.. :-) ).

Do you reject the idea that large differences in complexity, can manifest
as qualitative differences?  Yes, in principle both of these games are
formal systems that are finite, but in the case of chess, you cannot
possibly generate a list of all possible games in a "realisable" amount
of time (e.g. a person or societies lifetime).  You need to argue that it
is valid to ignore this difference in complexity.

Gerry Gleason