Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!claris!krazy
From: krazy@claris.com (Jeff Erickson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument
Message-ID: <9006@claris.com>
Date: 6 Mar 89 01:46:30 GMT
References: <7431@polya.Stanford.EDU>
Organization: Claris Corporation, Mountain View CA
Lines: 23

Okay, forgive me if I'm being stupid, and e-mail me if you'd rather not
let this question start a new, long, ugly chain of massages on the same
old question.

Why CAN'T the rules "understand"?  It looks (to me) like this is just a 
piece of software being run through some rather copmlex hardware (the book,
Searle, the room, etc.).

Every claim I've read here in the last six days for "there is no under-
standing." bases that claim on the question "If there were, where does it
come from?  Certainly not Searle (that's an axiom), and certainly not
the rule book (that's obvious)."

Why is it so obvious?

And if this IS obvious, where does MY understanding come from?  Certainly
not the little neurons.  That's obvious;-)

-- 
         Any opinions you read here are only opinions in my opinion.
Jeff Erickson                                                 krazy@claris.com
                 "I'm so heppy I'm mizzabil!"  -- Krazy Kat
------------------------------------------------------------------------------