Is their anything in Searle's argument that is specific to information and computing? I mean chairs for example are just piles of atoms, and don't really exist without some observer interpreting them as chairs.
(This by the way is a non-rhetorical question. I disagree with Searle on this point, but he his too smart not have a good response to this line of criticism).
(This by the way is a non-rhetorical question. I disagree with Searle on this point, but he his too smart not have a good response to this line of criticism).