Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!decwrl!shelby!polya!geddis From: geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU (Donald F. Geddis) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room argument Message-ID: <7559@polya.Stanford.EDU> Date: 9 Mar 89 20:32:52 GMT References: <15470@cup.portal.com> Sender: Donald F. Geddis Reply-To: geddis@polya.Stanford.EDU (Donald F. Geddis) Organization: Stanford University Lines: 28 In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: >Sometimes the best way to deal with an untoward conclusion >is to revise your premises. The people who are arguing till they are >black and blue that "rules understand" or "chalk understands" or >"Searle's brain has another mind that understands" would do better >to stop straining at it and simply confront the possibility that >it is not possible to pass the LTT by symbol crunching alone! We start with a hypothesis, that "mere symbol crunching" has the capability to pass the LTT. From that you are quite correct: if we logically derive a conclusion that everyone agrees is absurd, then (by reductio ad absurdum) we would have shown that the premise is false. But so far you seem to be the only one who view the System Reply conclusion (that the Searle + Rules combination is a mind that understands) as an absurd conclusion. It isn't good enough for your argument that the absurdity is obvious to you; it must be obvious to everyone else as well (such as: 0=1). The truth is that in this case the conclusion is perfectly consistent with the original hypothesis, so Searle's argument shows nothing. Which isn't quite the same as actually proving that symbol processing *could* achieve intelligence, but it is much better than the devastating blow you seem to be claiming. -- Don Geddis -- Geddis@Polya.Stanford.Edu "We don't need no education. We don't need no thought control." - Pink Floyd