From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds Tue Jan 28 12:16:25 EST 1992
Article 3052 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3052 sci.philosophy.tech:1949
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds
>From: lehman_ds@lrc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Table-lookup Chinese speaker
Message-ID: <1992Jan22.204850.145@lrc.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 92 01:48:50 GMT
References: <1992Jan20.182835.5307@spss.com> <1992Jan21.191924.18205@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan21.182524.7880@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan22.045102.20148@milton.u.washington.edu>
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Lines: 62

In article <1992Jan22.045102.20148@milton.u.washington.edu>, forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:
> In article <1992Jan21.182524.7880@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@widder.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>>I can't understand how this thread ever managed to get so far without
>>considering a very basic problem, that of context dependence of indexicals,
>>including pronouns, demonstratives, anaphora, and tensed verbs.
> 
> I think they are included.  This is so by the assumption that the context is
> conveyed within the medium used, in this case, written text.  How are humans
> able to convey such context through the written medium if machines cannot?
> 
>>Given this
>>consideration, it is easy to see that the truth-value of the predicate "X
>>is a meaningful Chinese sentence" depends not only on the sentential
>>antecedents of X, but also on the concrete non-linguistic context of the
>>entire discourse.
> 
> The Turing text limits one to a purely syntactical exchange.  If this is a
> problem it will remain a problem though any medium.
> 
>>Thus the notion of a predefined table of meaningful
>>conversations is inherently unrealizable, being that the infinitely
>>variable context can't *in principle* be fixed in advance.
> 
> I could accept this if I could accept that any particular entity can be
> exposed to an infinitely variable context rather than a very large finitely
> variable context. That is, is there any evidence that any particular
> individual can participate in more than a finite number of syntatical
> exchanges?  I think the evidence is overwhelmingly that none can.  This is
> true even when raised eyebrows, frowns, slaps, extended fingers, etc. are
> added.
> 
>>In this way,
>>the problem reduces to that of reference, for even if you equip your
>>artificial speaker with any number of sensors estabilishing a putative
>>connection between the content of its sentences, the operational success of
>>such connection will depend on the machine's capability of synthesizing a
>>single representation of an external object on the basis of infinitely
>>variable quasi-phenomenal data caused by its presence.  Since I have
>>previously discussed ad nauseam the intractability of this problem by
>>algorithmic means, I trust that the readers will excuse me from making
>>further arguments to that effect.
> 
> I have failed to see any which did not first require me to accept an
> non-recursive, infinte context.  It's probably a problem with me.  Sorry.
> 
> Do any think less of me just becuase I am not omniscient?  Do I syntnesize
> single (correct) representations of external objects on the basis of 
> infinitely variable quasi-phenomenal data caused by their presence (without 
> recoginizing I am doing so)?  Does my inability to do so prevent me from
> connecting the content of my sentences?
> 
>>: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
>>: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
> 
> --gary forbis@u.washington.edu
  Looking over this I must point out that we ourselves have problems 
placing all stimuli into one context.  Look at optical illusions.
Until we ourselves can do what you ask, I do not see why a machine
cannot be considered intelligent for the same reasons.  I see alot
of double standards comming up.
    Drew Lehman
    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu


