Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site rtp47.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!dual!qantel!ihnp4!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw
From: throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop)
Newsgroups: net.philosophy
Subject: Searle: why doesn't the room understand?
Message-ID: <246@rtp47.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 6-Nov-85 14:58:13 EST
Article-I.D.: rtp47.246
Posted: Wed Nov  6 14:58:13 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 10-Nov-85 16:51:29 EST
References: <2447@sjuvax.UUCP> <1987@pyuxd.UUCP> <2497@sjuvax.UUCP>
Organization: Data General, RTP, NC
Lines: 20

[The discussion is about the "Chinese Room" thought experiment, proposed
 by Searle to show that formal systems can't be made to "understand"
 without having "intensionality" and "causal powers".]

Todd Moody writes:
> The example shows that there could be two 'systems,' both of
> which pass the Turing test, but only one of which understands..."

This is the point where Searle and I part company.  His claim is that
the "Chinese room" doesn't understand the Chinese language.  As nearly
as I can tell, when asked *why* this is the case, the response is
essentially "Because it just *doesn't*, so *there*!"

Perhaps someone can help me out here.  Is there some more substantive
reason for thinking that the Chinese room *system* doesn't understand?
My position is that this is an *assertion* of Searle's, and is backed up
only by our identification with the non-understanding man *in* the
room.
-- 
Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC
!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw