Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!utcs!mnetor!seismo!caip!nike!ucbcad!ucbvax!XEROX.COM!Newman.pasa
From: Newman.pasa@XEROX.COM.UUCP
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Re: common sense
Message-ID: <860714-094227-1917@Xerox>
Date: Mon, 14-Jul-86 12:42:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: Xerox.860714-094227-1917
Posted: Mon Jul 14 12:42:00 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 14-Jul-86 22:37:49 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 22
Approved: ailist@sri-ai.arpa

Thanks for the reply.

Dreyfus' view seems to have changed a bit since I last read anything of
his, so I will let that go. However, I suspect that what I am about to
say applies to him too.

I like your description of Searle's argument. It puts some things in a
clearer light than Searle's own stuff. However, I think that my point
still stands. Searle's argument seems to assume some "magical" property
(I really should be more careful when I use this term; please understand
that I mean only that the property is unexplained, and that I find its
existence highly unintuitive and unlikely) of biology that allows
neurons (governed by the laws of physics, probably entirely
deterministic) to produce a phenomena (or epiphenomena if you prefer -
intelligence) that is not producible by other deterministic systems.

What is this strange feature of neurobiology? What reason do we have to
believe that it exists other than the fact that it must exist if the
Chineese Room argument is correct? I personally think it much more
likely that there is a flaw somewhere in the Chineese Room argument.

>>Dave