🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bz26Fy.ICq@gabriel.keele.ac.uk> csa33@keele.ac.uk (H.S. Nwana) writes:
>Mentioning the name Searle seems to provoke so much bashing.
>
>Isn't it the case that it just comes down to what we "believe"? We can always
>come up with arguments to support our belief and others will rubbish it. 
>Some believe in God, others do not.

Fine...  I can't really argue with you if you are a complete 
relativist/solipsist!  But do you think the same way when comparing
astrology and general relativity?  Is it all just a matter of "belief", 
or do some theories actually work better than others?

>Searle started with his Chinese room argument, then to the Chinese gym, because
>others attempted to prove a weakness in that, then to whatever his arguments now are? 
>Doubtless, he will dream up "better" arguments to support his belief.

Doubtless :).  My argument is that he is driven to do this because he 
accepts certain beliefs (that machines can't think) as axioms and
therefore has to try and justify them.

>Some of these arguments will be better than others; rational to some and irrational to others as we have different belief systems due to our cultural
>religious, etc diversity.
>
>We all know these arguments will go on and on. Perhaps spelling out the implications of whatever belief/view we hold will be of more use.

I guess this is what my original post was about.  Does anyone out there 
know anything about Searle?  I had a tentative idea that he might be 
motivated by strong religous beliefs, but someone has said that isn't the 
case.

Danny.