Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!nrl-cmf!ukma!xanth!nic.MR.NET!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bbn!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: <16080@cisunx.UUCP> Date: 22 Feb 89 02:42:29 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <16027@cisunx.UUCP> Reply-To: vangelde@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu (Timothy J Van) Organization: Univ. of Pittsburgh, Comp & Info Sys Lines: 33 In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: > >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. > Does "All of them are quite aware of the weaknesses" mean (a) they dont really endorse the view; or (b) they are aware that there is some *apparently* contrary evidence. Surely (a) is false and (b) is true. These people really do think that we are essentially symbol manipulators, though they also think that some people believe otherwise for bad reasons, and also that the view *could* be wrong - after all, it is an empirical question. Your reply gives the misleading impression that many of the most ardent advocates of the physical symbol system hypothesis think that the view has "weaknesses, i.e. is not really true. In fact, in spite of practical difficulties in the way of demonstrating that it is true, they all wholeheartedly subscribe to it - and this despite having thought deeply about the issue. And its a good thing they subscribe to the view, too - otherwise we wouldnt have someone to disagree with (at least, someone who's *worth* disagreeing with to disagree with). Tim van Gelder c/o Dept of Philosophy University of Pittsburgh vangelde@unix.cis.pittsburgh.edu