--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote: > > > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@> wrote: > > > > How do you respond to his answer to the systems reply? > > So Searle is being asked questions in Chinese, giving answers in > Chinese, and doing it so well that you cannot tell from the > questions/answers that he is not Chinese. > > Searle asserts that he does that without any understanding of Chinese. > > I call it bullshit. > > Regards, > Neil Neil, that was so knock-down! Maybe you can add to my bullshit in my other replies today? The point is that there might be available (and I already know you are sketical precisely where Searle isn't in this regard--let that be a funny between us that Stuart is incapable of grasping or not) a pretty swiffy program that passes a Turing test. I recall that you were quite emphatic that no computer has ever passed a Turing test (though sometimes I think that computers are one and all smarter than some of Stuart's brains given his arguments). Anyway, joking aside, Searle is simply assuming for the sake of argument that a computer passes a Turing test while having no necessary semantic contents. Now, how easy/hard should it be for those here to agree if they olready insist that the thesis that "minds have semantic contents" is up for grabs? Simma don na, simma don na! ! Cheers, Budd ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/