the world generally (only generally) corresponds to my construct. I should generally make the assumption that it does (until I stand in the witness box in Court against a skilled advocate). Marcus : 17 Jun 2012 6:47:04pm Searle is fine if we compare the tabulating person in the room with a tabulating computer. We are not comparing a brain and a computer, its a person and a computer. It's human meaning v. computer meaning, and it suggests there is more to human meaning than automatic tabulation. I would say automatic tabulation is essential to automatically structuring human meaning in milliseconds, but meaning is much broader than the facility of tabulation it uses. Meaning uses rapid tabulation as its facility, but is both organically functional and neuronally functional. Marcus : 27 Jun 2012 11:18:15pm PS. Listening to the arguments in the audio again, do not take Searle as a literal experiment. It only isolates two aspects, computer tabulation and human meaning, and purports to say they are "different" and nothing more. He cannot say, for example, they are "entirely" different, as they may overlap. The isolation makes it look like either there is tabulation (meaningless) or humanity (meaningful), and does not get at all into the relationship between the two, to become a useful real experiment, rather than being a fairly obvious way of showing they are different. For example, human meaning may require considerable tabulation and be dependent upon it. That is the real issue, and criticism of Searle is