Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pons.cis.ohio-state.edu!tj From: tj@pons.cis.ohio-state.edu (Todd R Johnson) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Searle's Chinese Room Message-ID: <86001@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu> Date: 16 Nov 90 18:29:44 GMT References: <16197@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <3952@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <10297@jpl-devvax.JPL.NASA.GOV> <3488@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Sender: news@tut.cis.ohio-state.edu Reply-To: Todd R Johnson Organization: Ohio State University Computer and Information Science Lines: 24 In article <3488@aipna.ed.ac.uk> cam@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes: >>If you want to know what Searle thought don't read this newsgroup! Read >>Searle! He's not as stupid as most of those who disagree with him :-) Agreed. After disagreeing with Searle I went back and re-read (and re-read) his Scientific American article. I still don't agree (or perhaps understand) the point he is trying to make with the Chinese Room argument. However, his main point seems to be that any intelligent artifact with the capabilities of a human must be built in hardware that is at least as power as the human brain. In other words, if we are to produce intelligent artifacts we MUST be willing to accept the fact that we need to create special software AND hardware. This seems quite reasonable. In fact, I don't see how anyone can disagree with it. ---Todd -- Todd R. Johnson tj@cis.ohio-state.edu Laboratory for AI Research The Ohio State University