'Information' is a dualist word now?
But when they say 'detailed physical constitution', they aren't using dualist words?
Yes, this is Searles thing - he tricks some folk into saying there are 0's and 1's inside the computer, then bases an argument around that.
Here it's the same - trick someone into saying there's 'information' in the computer, do not seek from them qualifiers on what they refered to when they said 'information', then provide your own qualifiers to argue against.
It's advanced strawman methods.
I was talking with Benjamin Cain on the TPB about that - I specifically asked him how, in intentless terms, he would describe how rain in the mountains comes together and forms rivers and streams.
The thing is, he may have absolutely no intentless vocabulary whatsoever.
With such a person, any time you bring up an intentless word, they simply reference their intentful version of the word.
What you have with Searle is either he is resisting pulling out his intentless vocab, or he has no intentless words.
And because were not all that aware of how much we adopt other peoples assumptions (particularly when they are said with a straight face), he's projecting the 'oh ho, these 1's and 0's, this word 'information' and all rich with intent!'
The best he's got is where someone doesn't notice themselves adopting his assumption and then are baffled as they look at their own ideas, but now with the assumption invisibly overlaid upon it.
Instead of hacking the other persons words into intentful words, it might be better to ask what they refer to. To be specific, to how little they refer to.