> Or is your worry more the sort of thing that John
> Searle is getting at in his examples about the
> "Chinese Room," that no matter how complicated and
> intricate a system of symbolic operations you create
> -- Searles is a big room that crunches Chinese
> ideograms, put in some, out come some that are
> appropriate -- it wases the Turing Test -- Searle says
> it won't be _conscious_, it won't be "there," it will
> lack that glow, whatever that is. Here there's no
> answer, there are only intuitions. Mine is that the
> Chinese room can think. Searle's, not.
I've read about Searle's argument secondhand a couple of times. What's his counter to the claim that _we're_ just metaphorical "Chinese Rooms"?
-- Luke