Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5945 sci.philosophy.tech:2094
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!a.gp.cs.cmu.edu!rjones
From: rjones@a.gp.cs.cmu.edu (Randolph Jones)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: more Chinese Room
Keywords: Chinese room, CR, Searle
Message-ID: <7946@pt.cs.cmu.edu>
Date: 12 Feb 90 17:29:25 GMT
References: <2602@cunixc.cc.columbia.edu> <1990Jan9.162338.28110@twwells.com> <9458@cbmvax.commodore.com> <21866@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <7758@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> <33868@cci632.UUCP>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Carnegie-Mellon University, CS/RI
Lines: 15

In article <33868@cci632.UUCP> jct@ccird3.UUCP (John Thompson) writes:
>I don't see a way that inductive reasoning, which by the definitions I am used
>to does not always follow rules ( i.e. the jump without sufficent data ), can
>be reduced to an algolrithm. Can anyone out there enlighten me as to where I am 
>wrong with this?

Inductive reasoning can definitely be accomplished with the use of rules.  
These rules are just not necessarily truth preserving.  For example, the rule
"The sun has risen every morning that I have experienced --> The sun will
 rise tomorrow morning" 
may or may not be true, but it is a rule that we humans use often to make
a useful induction.  If you are interested in algorithmic approaches to
inductive learning and reasoning, just look in the proceedings of the
Machine Learning conferences and workshops.  You will find a vast amount of 
research on this subject.