Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!bionet!ames!purdue!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mit-eddie!uw-beaver!teknowledge-vaxc!sri-unix!orawest!ejs
From: ejs@orawest.ARPA
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Provided: biblio-ref for Chinese Room
Keywords: Chinese Room, NL understanding, AI
Message-ID: <520@orawest.UUCP>
Date: 4 May 89 00:35:58 GMT
References: <526@dlt1.uucp>
Reply-To: orawest!ejs@unix.sri.com (e john sebes)
Organization: Odyssey Research Associates, West; Menlo Park, CA
Lines: 34

In article <526@dlt1.uucp> vendelma@dlt1.uucp (Ronald Vendelmans) writes:
>Recently there was a discussion on the net about Searle's Chinese Room.
>... I'm not sure whether the discussion started as a reaction
>on some article in a magazine, for example. 
>... can anyone give me references to 
>written material about the Chinese Room problem (other than Searle's
>article itself)? Any information is welcome.
>Many thanks in advance!
>Ronald
>------------------------------------------------------
>Ronald Vendelmans           vendelma@dlt1.uucp
>BSO/Research
>PO BOX 8348
>NL 3503 RH Utrecht          phone ..31/0 30 911911
>The Netherlands
>------------------------------------------------------

Besides any article that Searle wrote about the "problem"
(thought experiment is more like it, or perhaps straw man)
Searle wrote a short book that presents much of the motivation
for his position. It was published in the U.S. about 5 years ago,
and is called, I think _Minds, Brains, and Science_.
I am not sure about the last word, and there may be a subtitle;
but that should be enough to help you find it.
It's about 120 pages, in trade paperback, as I recall.

If you are really interested, then I think you ought to read the book,
to get a clearer idea of what the starting position was.
I say starting position, because much of the discussion rather
diverged from the original statement of the issues.

Happy hair-splitting!

John Sebes