From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!gatech!mcnc!ecsgate!lrc.edu!lehman_ds Tue Jan 28 12:16:57 EST 1992
Article 3089 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3089 sci.philosophy.tech:1960
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!yale.edu!jvnc.net!darwin.sura.net!gatech!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: <1992Jan23.092920.146@lrc.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 92 14:29:20 GMT
References: <1992Jan21.191924.18205@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan21.182524.7880@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan22.045102.20148@milton.u.washington.edu> <1992Jan22.103309.7900@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Lenoir-Rhyne College, Hickory, NC
Lines: 117

In article <1992Jan22.103309.7900@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
> 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:
> 
> MZ:
>>>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.
> 
> GF:
>>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?
> 
> Humans exist within a culture, making constant reference to their
> surroundings.  If you try taking hermeneutics seriously, you will realize
> the relevance of this fact to the question being discussed.  Look up some
> Umberto Eco on the difference between a dictionary and an encyclopedia, if
> you don't want to take my word for it.
> 
> MZ:
>>>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.
> 
> GF:
>>The Turing text limits one to a purely syntactical exchange.  If this is a
>>problem it will remain a problem though any medium.
> 
> I am arguing that "purely syntactical exchange" is a fiction, since no
> discourse can be meaningful without a valid pragmatic component.  Whether
> or not this consideration invalidates the assumptions needed for the Turing
> test, I neither know nor care, being that I consider such test to be
> insufficient for its purpose for independent reasons.
> 
> MZ:
>>>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.
> 
> GF:
>>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.
> 
> The context of an exchange is a constituent part of its host culture, which
> is quite independent of the expressive means thereof; in any case, please
> note that the salient point is not its potential infinity, but the actual
> impossibility of fixing it in advance.
> 
> MZ:
>>>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.
> 
> GF:
>>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.
> 
> Take it to be finite, then; nothing will change in the argument.
> 
> GF:
>>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?
> 
> I believe every sentient signifying being (and, a fortiori, a conscious
> agent, per our earlier discussion) to be capable of such synthesis
> (ignoring the `quasi-' part, since it is capable of real sense perception).
> This is why I consider the problem of visual image recognition to be
> intractable by computational means in the general case.  Please don't
> bother asking me for empirical evidence of our representational capacity,
> -- if one thing has been intuitively evident to all people who bothered to
> reflect on this subject, from Plato through Kant onwards, that's it.  All
> educated despisers of philosophy are hereby directed to the newsgroup line,
> and requested to stifle emerging expressions of disdainful incomprehension.
> 
>>--gary forbis@u.washington.edu
> 
> 
> `'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
> : Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
> : Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
> : Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
> :                                                             so     :
> : Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
> : 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
> : Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
> : email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
> :                                                                    :
> '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
    The problem with saying it should be obvious to anyone who reflects upon
the notion only tells me you are pulling out of the air.  I have not seen an
argument yet from the rationalist view point that has not been refuted by
empirists.  We no longer are talking about the same subject.  We now start
arguing about a priori and a postori(sp) knowledge.  If you can prove we
have a priori knowledge I might consider your argument.
    Drew Lehman
    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu


