Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!etive!aiai!jeff From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <334@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 16 Mar 89 18:39:57 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <9763@ihlpb.ATT.COM> Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 16 In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: >Counterargument: To ascertain (beyond reasonable doubt) that a system >CANNOT understand, you don't need a theory. Searle's argument is a case >in point: If Searle (or you, or me) does exactly what the computer does >but does not understand, then the computer does not understand. Of course the computer doesn't understand. The question is whether the computer + rules, in operation (rather than halted, say), understands. The problem with the so-called systems reply is that it is often made to say "the system understands" when all it needs is "Searle has failed to show that the system does not understand". No one has to prove the system does understand in order to refute Searle.