[comp.ai] Chinese fire-drill Arguments

jps@cat.cmu.edu (James Salsman) (03/02/89)

You people!  You should be ashamed for allowing yourselves
to be misled by Searle's pointless drivel!

Here are CMU, we don't just produce volumes of philosophical
crap like most ivy-league social institutions that call themselves
"Universities" -- we actually implement commercial systems. [1]

It is quite clear that the manipulation of symbols for
conversation in an exotic language would require an enormous
about of computation.  No human could ever manually deliver
enough cycles in a lifetime to process the first word!

Searle's idea of an english speaking person performing the
computations to comprehend Chinese is plain stupid!  The
best you could hope to do would be to give the englishman a
Chinese lexicon, and it should be plain to everyone that
this totally misses the point.

If you could call the simulation "consiousness" it would share
that property with the driver.  If that driver is a human, it
is easy to see how this could be, but it also becomes clear
that the "simulation consiousness" has much less processing
power than the "driver consiousness."

:James Salsman

[1] However, for marketing reasons, the CMU administration has
asked that we no longer call our knowledge-based expert systems
and learning algorithims by the name "Artificial Intelligence"
or "AI."  This upsets Pittsburgh's large neo-Luddite factions.

-- 

:James P. Salsman (jps@CAT.CMU.EDU)
--