Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5240 talk.philosophy.misc:3316 sci.philosophy.tech:1794
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!mcnc!duke!bilbo!jfw
From: jfw@bilbo.mc.duke.edu (John Whitehead)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room, Shannon, Churchlands, Scientific American
Message-ID: <411@bilbo.mc.duke.edu>
Date: 18 Dec 89 18:13:01 GMT
References: <83367@linus.UUCP> <1989Dec18.014229.18058@athena.mit.edu>
Reply-To: jfw@bilbo.mc.duke.edu.UUCP (PUT YOUR NAME HERE)
Distribution: na
Organization: Duke University Medical Center -- Durham, NC
Lines: 11

In article <1989Dec18.014229.18058@athena.mit.edu> crowston@athena.mit.edu (Kevin Crowston) writes:
>I also read Searle's and the Churchland's articles in Scientific American
>and I'm not sure I understand Searle's argument.  Perhaps someone who
>does can try to explain once more.

For a good analysis of this -- and many other similar thought-challenging
papers -- check out _The Mind's I_, edited by Douglas Hofstadter and
Daniel Dennett.  I haven't seen the Sci Am article, but I imagine it is
similiar (if not identical) to the one in this book.

     - John Whitehead