" 

 :I'm not sure that you're correct that ""nearly all computer scientists"" agree with Strong AI. If you saw a machine pass a Turing test, and then someone turned to you and asked if you thought it had ""mind"" with ""consciousness"" just like ours,  would you agree right away? I think most (thoughtful) people would say either (1) ""I'd need to know something about the program before I'll agree that it's conscious."" (I.e. the Turing test is an insufficient measure of consciousness) or (2) ""Who cares if it's conscious? It's unbelievably impressive!"" (I.e., ""consciousness"" and ""mind"" are either meaningless or irrelevant.)  

 :I don't think most computer scientists claim you can use a Turing test to uncover a ""mind"". However, all of them agree (and Searle as well) that you can use AI technology to solve problems. I don't think computer scientists spend a whole lot of time thinking about ""minds"" in any case. Which is Harnad's point: Searle should have attacked Hillary Putnam and Jerry Fodor directly, rather than picking on innocent computer scientists like Roger Schank, who never claimed his programs ""actually understood"" or ""had minds"" in the first place.     "