Xref: utzoo sci.philosophy.tech:3738 comp.ai.philosophy:338
Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!ucsd!nosc!cod!deichman
From: deichman@cod.NOSC.MIL (Shane D. Deichman)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle, Strong AI, and Chinese Rooms
Message-ID: <2460@cod.NOSC.MIL>
Date: 13 Nov 90 19:06:53 GMT
References: <1990Nov12.122329.15235@daimi.aau.dk>
Reply-To: deichman@cod.nosc.mil.UUCP (Shane D. Deichman)
Organization: Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego
Lines: 29


In his earlier posting, Svend makes some brilliant arguments in
support of a deterministic, non-free will environment for human
existence.  By deftly casting the arguments of both Searle and
the Churchlands aside, he resorts to a "If it exhibits the qualities
of intelligence then it IS intelligent" argument.  Is that to say
that human perceptions are always infallible, and that what we
see and perceive actually IS?  Or does it imply that our percep-
tions, while not always accurate, still elicit a deeper understanding
of a given phenomenon based on multiple repetitions?

The Chinese Room argument points out some deficiencies in the Turing
Test -- deficiencies which call upon the observer to take a deeper,
more profound look at what is meant by "understanding" and "knowledge."
Svend disregards the subconsciousness associated with cognition and
lucidity, and therefore begs the question.

Furthermore, he attacks the Churchlands (supposed "allies" in his 
campaign in support of Strong AI) in their reasoning capacities
for failing to see this point he so astutely raises.  Perhaps, in
a stolid, deterministic world where emotions are bleak representa-
tions of mere "sensory inputs," Svend's arguments would carry some
weight.  But in a world enriched by the subtleties of life, his
"intelligence" as a function of outward appearance is exceedingly
bland.

-shane

"the Ayatollah of Rock-and-Rollah"