Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!cornell!rochester!pt.cs.cmu.edu!cadre!pitt!cisunx!vangelde From: vangelde@cisunx.UUCP (Timothy J Van) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <16027@cisunx.UUCP> Date: 20 Feb 89 21:13:11 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@netnews.upenn.edu> Reply-To: vangelde@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Timothy J Van) Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys Lines: 38 In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: > >" [1] I don't believe Searle has a mind... [2] everyone is >" just a symbol processing box... can you prove me wrong? > >that anyone else but oneself has a mind. On the other hand, [2] is >just an obiter dictum, hand-waving, a bald claim (one that also happens >to be believed by a lot of current AI investigators simply because >they have not thought very deeply about any of this). > >No, [2] is a different kettle of fish. It's just a not very deeply >examined notion that is currently in fashion and that Searle's argument >(for those who have been prepared to think deeply enough about it to >understand it) has gone some way toward showing to be incorrect. A more I tend to be sympathetic to just about every point Stevan Harnad has made in this interesting "continental bull session" - except this one. I take it that [2] is just the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis (Newell and Simon), otherwise known as the GOFAI hypothesis (Haugeland). Is this really just a bold claim that nobody would take seriously if they had thought deeply about the issue? Is Harnad saying that Newell and Simon, Pylsyhyn, Haugeland, Fodor etc have not thought deeply about the issue? If so, Harnad has quite remarkably high standards for thinking deeply about the issue - not even some of the most respected minds in cognitive science make the grade. If, by contrast, Harnad really has thought deeply about the issue, he surely belongs in the ranks of Turing, von Neumann, Wittgenstein etc. Now, I happen to think that the PSSH is in fact false. But I also think that it is a very deep and well worked out view - rather better worked out, in fact, than just about any psychological paradigm I can think of. In fact, that's one reason we are now in a position to see its flaws. So I dont want to endorse the position; rather, I just question the rather outrageous claim that anyone who does endorse it cant have thought deeply about the issue. Steve, please reassure me that I have misunderstood you somewhere here... Tim van Gelder