From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!ttobler Mon Dec  9 10:48:19 EST 1991
Article 1892 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!samsung!uunet!viusys!uxui!unislc!ttobler
>From: ttobler@unislc.uucp (Trent Tobler)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room, from a different perspective
Message-ID: <1991Dec5.195903.4246@unislc.uucp>
Date: 5 Dec 91 19:59:03 GMT
References: <4dCxHKK00WBKA3VAgN@andrew.cmu.edu>
Organization: unisys
Lines: 32

> 
> I guess I just don't see the problem the people arguing against Searle
> have. Let's suppose you have memorized Searle's hypothesized rule book
> (so what you have is a lot of associations between different symbols and
> groupings of symbols as well as chains of such associations).  You have *no*
> idea what the symbols refer to, however, and, therefore, what they or
> groupings of them mean.  Now, let someone write you a message in Chinese
> asking you what colors daffodils are. Then let someone write you a message
> in English asking the same question.  Do you "understand" both questions?
> (note: this is different than; Can you respond to both questions with the
> appropriate answer?). Presumably you didn't understand the first question 
> (at least I wouldn't). Why do you think you didn't?

How do you know that someone else (in this case, the knowledge base in 'your'
mind) did not understand the chinese question.  There could still be two
systems, one of which the man has understanding (english), and one which the
identity (you) is not.  Just because there is one apparent system does not
mean others do not exist.  In this case, we could argue there are still
two systems.

> Consider the problem *physically*.  Do you think you can determine what
> trees, for example, look like or feel like from the *physical* structures
> of all the symbols and symbol strings that have to do with trees? (remember,
> *you* don't know what those symbols or symbol strings mean, so *the only* 
> possible sources of information are the physical structures of the symbol
> strings and associations between those physical structures.)

Why do I (identity) need to be aware of it for the system of symbols to have
intelligence, awareness, etc.?

--
  Trent Tobler - ttobler@csulx.weber.edu


