Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!rutgers!mcdchg!tellab5!nucsrl!accuvax.nwu.edu!anaxagoras!ils.nwu.edu!shafto From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Searle's Chinese Room Message-ID: <2527@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu> Date: 12 Nov 90 05:35:10 GMT References: <7014@castle.ed.ac.uk> <16197@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <3952@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes: > This is very critical. There is *no* part of the brain which understands, > only the whole brain, operating normally can be said to understand. I think this still leaves you vulnerable to Searle's argument. The critical fact is this: Not only does no part of the brain understand, the brain doesn't understand. The system of which the brain is a part (for which the brain is the substrate?) understands. Let's call that system the mind. In other words, *I* understand, but my brain does not. Am I my brain? I think not. The system in the room understands, but the human does not. Where's the contradiction? Searle's genius lies in making things seem overwhelmingly counterintuitive. He never actually proves or disproves anything. Regards, Eric Shafto Institute for the Learning Sciences Northwestern University