Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Path: utzoo!decvax!ucbvax!SRI-KL.ARPA!PHayes
From: PHayes@SRI-KL.ARPA (Pat Hayes)
Newsgroups: mod.ai
Subject: Searle's logic
Message-ID: <8610060618.AA12878@ucbvax>
Date: Mon, 29-Sep-86 12:55:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: ucbvax.8610060618.AA12878
Posted: Mon Sep 29 12:55:11 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 6-Oct-86 06:15:42 EDT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: The ARPA Internet
Lines: 18
Approved: ailist@sri-stripe.arpa

I try not to get involved in these arguments,  but bruce krulwich's assertion
that Searle 'bases all his logic on' the binary nature of computers is seriously
wrong.  We could have harware which worked with direct, physical, embodiments
of all of Shakespeare, and Searles arguments would apply to it just as well. 
What bothers him ( and many other philosophers ) is the idea that the machine
works by manipulating SYMBOLIC descriptions of its environment ( or whatever it
happens to be thinking about ).  It's the internal representation idea, which
we AIers take in with our mothers milk, which he finds so silly and directs his
arguments against.
Look, I also don't think there's any real difference between a human's knowledge
of a horse and machine's manipulation of the symbol it is using to represent it.
But Searle has some very penetrating arguments against this idea, and one doesnt
make progress by just repeating one's intuitions, one has to understand his
arguments and explain what is wrong with them.  Start with the Chinese room, and
read all his replies to the simple counterarguments as well, THEN come back and
help us.
Pat Hayes
-------