Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!metro!grivel!gara!pnettlet
From: pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is no good!
Summary: Picky, aren't we!
Message-ID: <3240@gara.une.oz.au>
Date: 18 Aug 90 06:53:49 GMT
References: <2860@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3156@gara.une.oz.au> <1179@zeus.usq.edu.au>
Distribution: comp
Organization: University of New England, Armidale, Australia
Lines: 21

In article <1179@zeus.usq.edu.au>, s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au (house ron) writes:
> pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes:
> 
> >You see, Searl's experiment means nothing because although Searl, as part
> >of the system, knows nothing about Chinese, the system as a whole does.
> 
> Now we're just going roud in circles!  This exact claim is answered by Searle
> in his original document.  There's no point in just blandly posting the
> same old opinions; we know there are people who think like you without
> being reminded ad infinitum.  Please post something which advances the
> state of the debate.

I didn't bring Searl up again, I would rather forget the stupid Searl debate
altogether. We were discussing the Turing Test and Frank brought up Searl.
Searl's argument sucks - it proves nothing! So lets just let it drop!
Philosophers should stick to the meaning of life - it more up there alley.

It might help if you followed the Turing Test discussion more closelythen
you wouldn't make unsupportable statements about who is doing what ad finitium.

							Philip Nettleton.