Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!harnad From: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Summary: Symbolic functionalism looked good for a while... Message-ID: Date: 21 Feb 89 05:20:45 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <16027@cisunx.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 26 vangelde@cisunx.UUCP (Timothy J Van) of Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys wrote: " [2] is just the Physical Symbol System Hypothesis (Newell and Simon), " otherwise known as the GOFAI hypothesis (Haugeland). Is this really just " a bold [sic] 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? Most of the individuals you mention are deep thinkers and have thought deeply about the issue. All of them are quite aware of the weaknesses of the hypothesis. I doubt that any of them would endorse the kinds of bald [sic] claims that many advocates of the "Systems Reply" to Searle have made. In my paper (JETAI 1 (1989) p. 23, fn. 24) I give what I think is close to an exhaustive list of the features that made "symbolic functionalism" (as I call it) look good for a while. The rest is devoted to showing why it was not good enough. -- Stevan Harnad INTERNET: harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu harnad@princeton.uucp BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet CSNET: harnad%princeton.edu@relay.cs.net (609)-921-7771