🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <HWAJIN.90Feb1191721@ganges.wrs.com> 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