Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cogsci!dave From: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Summary: If the Chinese Room was reading all this, it would be a bored-room. Message-ID: <18287@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Date: 7 Mar 89 08:33:15 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <9787@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Sender: root@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Reply-To: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) Organization: Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University Lines: 22 Stevan Harnad writes (many many times) [I paraphrase]: >If Searle doesn't understand, then Searle + rules can't either. >Meaningless neurons have powers that meaningless symbols do not. >Complexity is an irrelevant factor. >Symbol-crunchers are inherently, intuitively empty and stupid. >[Much else in the way of "proof by assertion".] >The "Total Turing Test" and "Robotic Functionalism" [sic] are the true answer. >Nobody out there understands these arguments, but they're right. >Maybe if I say this enough times, people will believe me. Wrong, Stevan, you lose. Can we talk about something else now? Dave Chalmers