Yes, she was!: Reply to Ford's "helen Keller was never in a Chinese Room"

William J. Rapaport

doi:10.1007/s11023-010-9213-z

Yes, she was! Reply to Ford's "helen Keller was never in a Chinese Room"

William J. Rapaport

Department of Computer Science and Engineering

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

3 Scopus citations

Abstract

Ford's "Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room" claims that my argument in "How Helen Keller Used Syntactic Semantics to Escape from a Chinese Room" fails because Searle and I use the terms 'syntax' and 'semantics' differently, hence are at cross purposes. Ford has misunderstood me; this reply clarifies my theory.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	3-17
Number of pages	15
Journal	Minds and Machines
Volume	21
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-010-9213-z
State	Published - Feb 2011

Keywords

Chinese room argument
Searle
Syntactic semantics

Access to Document

10.1007/s11023-010-9213-z

Cite this

@article{4d9fe75320ae4c97be52692187c708a0,

title = "Yes, she was!: Reply to Ford's {"}helen Keller was never in a Chinese Room{"}",

abstract = "Ford's {"}Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room{"} claims that my argument in {"}How Helen Keller Used Syntactic Semantics to Escape from a Chinese Room{"} fails because Searle and I use the terms 'syntax' and 'semantics' differently, hence are at cross purposes. Ford has misunderstood me; this reply clarifies my theory.",

keywords = "Chinese room argument, Searle, Syntactic semantics",

author = "Rapaport, \{William J.\}",

year = "2011",

month = feb,

doi = "10.1007/s11023-010-9213-z",

language = "English",

volume = "21",

pages = "3--17",

journal = "Minds and Machines",

issn = "0924-6495",

publisher = "Springer Netherlands",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Yes, she was!

T2 - Reply to Ford's "helen Keller was never in a Chinese Room"

AU - Rapaport, William J.

PY - 2011/2

Y1 - 2011/2

N2 - Ford's "Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room" claims that my argument in "How Helen Keller Used Syntactic Semantics to Escape from a Chinese Room" fails because Searle and I use the terms 'syntax' and 'semantics' differently, hence are at cross purposes. Ford has misunderstood me; this reply clarifies my theory.

AB - Ford's "Helen Keller Was Never in a Chinese Room" claims that my argument in "How Helen Keller Used Syntactic Semantics to Escape from a Chinese Room" fails because Searle and I use the terms 'syntax' and 'semantics' differently, hence are at cross purposes. Ford has misunderstood me; this reply clarifies my theory.

KW - Chinese room argument

KW - Searle

KW - Syntactic semantics

UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/79953042638

U2 - 10.1007/s11023-010-9213-z

DO - 10.1007/s11023-010-9213-z

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:79953042638

SN - 0924-6495

VL - 21

SP - 3

EP - 17

JO - Minds and Machines

JF - Minds and Machines

IS - 1

ER -

Yes, she was! Reply to Ford's "helen Keller was never in a Chinese Room"

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this