Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!muttiah
From: muttiah@cs.purdue.EDU (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Is the Chinese Room Experiment Consistent?
Message-ID: <9177@medusa.cs.purdue.edu>
Date: 6 Jan 90 16:11:18 GMT
References: <1798@uwm.edu> <6048@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU
Reply-To: muttiah@cs.purdue.edu (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah)
Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University
Lines: 20

In article <6048@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes:
>From article <1798@uwm.edu>, by markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins):
>
>>...  What makes anyone think that it is even possible to
>>formulate a complete set of language rules that do not also take into account
>>our mobility and musculature, our sensory systems ...
>
>Nobody does think that, so far I can gather.  So the rules must
>take those things into account.
>





Interestingly, the Korean language letters consists mainly
of symbols signifying the mouth.  Actually, Korea has a very
interesting language history.  But anyway, I don't want to start 
a Korean room problem or even a Tamil room problem which I know
no one will pass :-).