🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <968@metapsy.UUCP> sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
>On reflection, I don't think you can dispose of the issue that easily
>by differentiating between the program and the hardware.  The program
>is a schema that describes the electronic state the hardware should
>be in when the code file is loaded.  In a very real sense, then, the
>shape of the physical machine has been altered by loading the code
>file, just as much as if you had flipped switches within the machine
>(as we used to do with the old panel switches).  So after the code is
>loaded, there is actually a different physical machine there, just as
>much as if one had gone out and bought a different machine.

But even so, the program still exists in both cases, right?

Actually, I think you've made a key point here.  Loading the software
essentially gives you a different machine.  But I think this actually
supports my argument.  Imagine the effect on the "understanding" done
by the Chinese room of replacing the person with someone else (assuming
that someone can also follow the rules).  Now imagine changing the 
rulebook.  In the first case, the Chinese room will be unaffected; in
the second, it might change.  I would argue that this is further
evidence that it's the program not the hardware that matters.  Since it
could be anyone in the Chinese Room, it shouldn't matter what that
person happens to think. 
>
>Just because it isn't "hard" (i.e., you can't kick it, and it's easy
>to change), doesn't mean it isn't a physical entity.

Actually, this was my point.  Software exists, even though you can't point
to it.

Kevin Crowston