Path: utzoo!utgpu!watserv1!watmath!iuvax!cica!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!randy
From: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Message-ID: <14069@s.ms.uky.edu>
Date: 8 Feb 90 05:55:32 GMT
References: <1037@ra.stsci.edu> <6902@cbnewsh.ATT.COM> <1995@moscom.UUCP> <4050@jarthur.Claremont.EDU> <907@athen.sinix.UUCP> <1326@oravax.UUCP> <11185@thor.acc.stolaf.edu> <1328@oravax.UUCP>
Reply-To: randy@ms.uky.edu (Randy Appleton)
Distribution: comp.ai
Organization: U of Kentucky, Mathematical Sciences
Lines: 12

I just read the Jan Scientific American, the one with Searle and so on.
Here is the one burning question I have.  I think a satisfactory answer to this
will convince me that Searle is right, and strong-AI is wrong.  But until
then, I find Searle's argument to be imprecise gobbly-gook.

What exactly IS the difference between "understanding" and "the formal
manipulation of syntatic symbols"?  He uses those two phrases quite alot,
and I think it is this difference that is his main argument.  BUT HE NEVER
SAYS WHAT IT IS! ARG!

Well, thanks
Randy