Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!bu.edu!dartvax!eleazar.dartmouth.edu!llama
From: llama@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Joseph A. Francis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: No more Chinese rooms, please
Message-ID: <23107@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU>
Date: 11 Jul 90 03:13:10 GMT
References: <598@ntpdvp1.UUCP>
Sender: news@dartvax.Dartmouth.EDU
Organization: Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH
Lines: 21

In article <598@ntpdvp1.UUCP> kenp@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Ken Presting) writes:
>As I see it, the Systems Reply suffers from a far worse problem of 
>vagueness than does Searle's original argument.  What is a "System"?
>All of us programmers have a very robust notion of how a computer
>runs a program.  We are not confused by such complications as virtual
>memory, multitasking, distributed processing, and asynchronous execution.
>(Well, we do get confused sometimes, but whoever it is that wrote the
>operating system must have figured it out at least once).  

This vagueness only occurs because of our limited understanding.  In the CR,
our understanding is limited because the decription of the system is so 
sketchy (we don't really know how the rule book is interacting with the
symbols).  In human machines (so to speak), it gets even more complex.
What portion of you, for instance, understands?

It would actually be a more telling blow to the systems response if it
did NOT leave us with questions about what it is that constitutes the
system.

"Read My Lips: No Nude Texans" - George Bush clearing up a misunderstanding