Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cica!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!ucsd!usc!ucla-cs!oahu.cs.ucla.edu!martin
From: martin@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (david l. martin)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <36193@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Date: 12 Jun 90 23:25:41 GMT
References: <2687@skye.ed.ac.uk> <36091@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU> <587@dlogics.COM>
Sender: news@CS.UCLA.EDU
Organization: UCLA Computer Science Department
Lines: 16

In article <587@dlogics.COM> dsa@dlogics.COM (David Angulo) writes:
>I think that's the crux of Searle's flaw (or perhaps just one of many).  How
>can you assume what the computer program is going to look like when you have
>no idea what the problem even is yet?  Granted, given Searle's type of book
>of all possible questions and answers, there would probably be no intelligence.
>That's probably not what the program will look like, however.  Maybe the
>program won't look ANYTHING like language.

I think out of fairness to Searle we have to grant that he has been arguing
about computer programs in the conventional sense of the term.  Any such
program can be viewed as a set of instructions in some language.  If there
is a computer that can run the program, then conceivably Searle could carry out
the same set of instructions (albeit at a much slower pace, with the
help of pencil and paper, etc., etc.).

Dave Martin