<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 7, 2009, at 7:27 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">I argue, the man in the room must lack knowledge not only of the meanings of Chinese symbols, but also the words and symbols of every possible language in the universe. He must have no semantics whatsoever.</span></blockquote><br></div><div>Or just get rid of the little man altogether and replace him with a 1950's punch card sorting machine, it would be slow but faster than the man. What makes Searle's Chinese Room such a stupid thought experiment is its conclusion: The little man doesn't understand anything therefore the entire Chinese Room doesn't understand anything. Pretty dumb.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div></body></html>