Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!eecae!netnews.upenn.edu!eniac.seas.upenn.edu!steyn From: steyn@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Gavin Steyn) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <8174@netnews.upenn.edu> Date: 19 Feb 89 16:17:42 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu Reply-To: steyn@eniac.seas.upenn.edu.UUCP (Gavin Steyn) Organization: University of Pennsylvania Lines: 16 In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: >Before we buy into any dogmas, it is a fact that Searle has a mind, but >definitely NOT a fact that "Fu Bar" has a mind. > >Irrelevant again. That Searle has a mind (at least one) is not in >doubt. I'm sorry, I don't believe Searle has a mind. In fact, everyone is just a symbol processing box (the equivalent of Fu Bar). So, I doubt Searle has understanding. Now, can you prove me wrong? Or, since you probably don't know Searle that well, prove to me that you have a mind, and aren't a symbol manipulator. I don't believe it's possible for you to do so, in which case Searle's argument degenerates into proving that none of us are actually intelligent. Gavin Steyn