Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!cs.umn.edu!hougen From: hougen@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Chinese Room by Shannon and McCarthy from 1956 Summary: career based on one thought Keywords: Searle, Haugland, nonsense Message-ID: <1990Feb2.181416.24539@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu> Date: 2 Feb 90 18:14:16 GMT References: <2891@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu> Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept. Lines: 24 In article hwajin@ganges.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae) writes: >I cannot help but marvelling at his career that is entirely >based on this Chinese Room nonsense. The sheer volume of responses and >arguments generated since its first appearance in his 1981 (?) paper >boggles the mind. >Hwa Jin Bae, Wind River Systems, Emeryville CA This is especially mind boggling (though surely not marvelous, at least not in the most widely used sense of the word) when one considers that along with the original article came a number of replies from various authors, and one of them (the one by Haugland, if I remember correctly) completely destroys Searle's argument. And Searle's reply to this criticism completely misses the boat. Its rather like having someone give a proof that 2=1, having the error in the proof accompany the proof, and yet having the proof repeated and discussed for years. Part of the problem may be that the criticisms (peer review) of the article are often ignored (because, for example, in the class in which the Searle's paper is brought up, the instructor doesn't photocopy this part). They shouldn't be. There is much more to be learned from the peer review of the article than all that Searle has written on the Chinese room. Dean Hougen -- "Say something once, why say it again?" - Talking Heads