Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!rutgers!njin!princeton!phoenix!eliot
From: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <16960@phoenix.Princeton.EDU>
Date: 4 Jun 90 02:56:30 GMT
References: <16875@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <2629@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Reply-To: eliot@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Eliot Handelman)
Organization: Princeton University, NJ
Lines: 11

In article <2629@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
;                                                    It would be
;nice, therefore, to have a straightforward refutation of the
;Chinese Room, preferably one with some intuitive appeal, and even
;better, I suppose, if it could be shown that Searle was in the
;grip of a fundamental misunderstanding of computation.


How's this for intuitive appeal: no such "book" as the one Searle presupposes
can exist. If this were true, then the argument is based on an impossible
premise, hence there's no argument.