Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aipna!rjc From: rjc@aipna.ed.ac.uk (Richard Caley) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <618@aipna.ed.ac.uk> Date: 7 Mar 89 04:21:04 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <7408@polya.Stanford.EDU> Reply-To: rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna (Richard Caley) Organization: Dept. of AI, Edinburgh, UK Lines: 49 Dragon: Orm Embar In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: >"Searle + rules" is a piece of cog-sci-fi. Are you saying that "Searle+rules" does not exist? If so your basic conception of the world seems very far from mine and, I suspect, most of the world. Most people are happy to talk about combinations of entities ( " my husband and I", " house and contents" . . . ) Now maybe they do not think that "Searle + rules" is an _interesting_ thing to talk about, and more than " three cups of coffee and a space shuttle" would be, but non the less it _is_ a thing which some strange folk might wish to discuss. >Do you believe that I >could fail to understand, and alpha centauri could fail to understand, >but "I + alpha centauri" could compositely understand? Intuativly, no. Logically, I can't say - I have no way of deciding one way or the other. Certainly "Me +alpha centauri" has properties which I do not ( eg a very high average temperature! ). I _can't_ say catagorically that "understanding" is or is not one of those properties. If anyone thinks that they can maybe they can post their proof. Similaly the "systems" argument says that Searle, by forgetting this option leaves a hole in his proof. We don't need to believe that "Searle+rules" can understand to invalidate the Chineese Room, we mearly need to see that there is no proof that this composite entity can not. >Could we >compositely feel an itch that neither of us feels singly? Can your head plus your foot feel an itch in that foot while the foot has not the equipment to feel anything, but your head has not the foot to itch with? >If you don't >PRESUPPOSE the far-fetched notion that the Chinese Room Argument set >out to debunk in the first place, then you're less inclined to come >back with it by way of a reasoned rebuttal! On the contarary, if you do not PRESUPPOSE that certain things can not "understand" the chinese room argument falls like a house of cards. -- rjc@uk.ac.ed.aipna "Politics! You can wrap it up in fancy ribbons, but you can't hide the smell" - Jack Barron