Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!smoliar From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <7586@venera.isi.edu> Date: 21 Feb 89 15:50:11 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@netnews.upenn.edu> <764@htsa.uucp> Sender: news@venera.isi.edu Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute Lines: 41 In article <764@htsa.uucp> fransvo@htsa.UUCP (Frans van Otten) writes: >In article , >harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: >> >>The ONLY one who can know for sure that Searle has a mind is Searle himself. >>And the same is true of your mind: YOU know it (don't you? don't you?). > >You say you're *sure* that you have a mind, you *know* it. How can you >be *sure* if you only *know* it ? I say you only had a compile-time flag: > >program Stevan_Harnad(input, output); > >const I_HAVE_A_MIND = true; /* The main point */ > >var alive : boolean; > symbol : SymbolType; > result : ResultType; > >begin > alive = TRUE; > while alive > do > symbol = Read_Symbol; > result = Crunch_Symbol(symbol); > if result = dead > then alive = false > else Output_Result(result); > end; >end. > >I want you to show me how you can prove to yourself that you have a mind. >Until then I must assume that you are (only) a symbol cruncher, and so >must you. > I think Frans has done an excellent job of a symbolic reformulation of the point I originally wished to raise. An argument which is based on assertions of what it "obvious" to introspection is no argument at all, no matter how many words Searle and Harnad decide to invest in it. (Incidentally, I believe it was Harry Truman who coined a phrase to describe an argument which is supported by nothing more than an over-abundance of verbiage; he called it "The Big Lie.")