Article View: comp.ai
Article #8707Re: Is the Chinese Room Experiment Consistent?
From: Jeff Dalton
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1990 21:18
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 1990 21:18
9 lines
972 bytes
972 bytes
In article <1798@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > So the question is, why do we even accept the premise of the Chinese Room >Experiment when it is, in my mind, obviously contradictory? (that a language >can be "described" independent of the way it is "understood" and "used".) I suspect Searle did it that way because he was arguing against a position that made such assumptions. Maybe we can start talking about Dreyfus (?sp) again. He at least used to argue that understanding can't be captured by rules.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1529@skye.ed.ac.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeffReferences:
<1798@uwm.edu>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!ukc!edcastle!aiai!jeff From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Is the Chinese Room Experiment Consistent? Message-ID: <1529@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 10 Jan 90 21:18:45 GMT References: <1798@uwm.edu> Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 9