From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue Apr  7 23:22:27 EDT 1992
Article 4737 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992Mar26.085058.12745@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 26 Mar 92 08:50:58 GMT
References: <6422@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar18.064723.6873@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6517@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 157

In article <6517@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Mar18.064723.6873@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>In article <6422@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>In article <44765@dime.cs.umass.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>>>>	It seems to me that the way in which a program manipulates
>>>>its symbols shows that it has attached some type of meaning to them:
>
I just realized that a conclusion that I draw below is
similar but not same as above (by O'Rourke) read on.

>and haveing someone else read the questions and tell me the answers
>via a tiny microphone, you would no longer conclude that I understood
>geometry.  However, you might well conclude that the person who told
>me the answers understood geometry.
>
>For some reason, Antun Zirdum seems to be confusing this idea with the
>claim that someone who _learns_ goemetry doesn't understand it -- only
>their teachers do:
>
I am not confused in this in the least! I was only attempting
to get a response on why a computer (by being taught) cannot
understand, while a human (by being taught the same way) can!
>> [...]  If we follow
>>your argument above to its relevent conclusions then nobody
>>understands mathematics, it is always the teachers that they
>>consulted with that understand mathematics!
>
>It should be clear that in some cases the person answering
>the questions understands, but not in others.  
>
This is the part I have trouble with (it requires spelling)
What are the cases that allow YOU to determine that the
person understands? (and not some book/etc)
>Anyway, here's what filled the "..." above:
>
>>I am capable of programming a computer program, that when run,
>>is able to manipulate mathematics that is beyond my level.
>>So clearly there can exist a program that functions in ways
>>that its designers never could have forseen.
>
>It's certainly clear that there can exist programs that function
>in ways their designers did not forsee (eg, programs with bugs).
>Whether they _couldn't_ have forseen it is a more difficult question.
>
>>I do not think that you have a clear understanding
>>of what it means to understand! For example, Subjectively
>>you understand X! Now what does that mean?
>
>As I tried to explain in other messages, I'm not going to play the
>game where other people demand definitions and I have to produce
>them.  If you want to make progress on this point, you might try
>telling me what you think it means to understand, and why you
>think "the system" satisfies this definition.  Of course, I will
>understand if you too decline to play this game.
>
Nonsense, I am playing no game! I will certainly tell you
what understanding means, it is up to you to kick down the
argument.
Defn': Understand: A entity understands X when it has knowledge
of X that correlate to Y.
This is the minimalistic defn for understanding that I can think
of, it is certainly not complete - but I think it attempts
to explain how understanding is possible on a physical system.
The system is able to correlate knowledge, that is why it
has understanding.
>>>
[deleted- rehtoric "syntax isn't enough for semantics"]
>>If we are to go in that direction then I must argue that
>>syntax is the symbols, semantics is the actual manipulation
>>of the syntax. After all, the CR is not merely a collection of
>>symbols, it also encompasses a manipulation of those symbols
>>- that cannot be reduced to mere syntax! (however you cut it!)
>
>So the symbols acquire meaning by being used in certain ways.
>There might be something to that.  On the other hand, the mere
>fact that the symbols are being manipulated does not give them
>meaning.  For instance, I could manipulate them by shaking them
>up and throwing them on the floor.

Nor would you claim that a brain could survive the same treatment!
It comes down to this - Without the rules that manipulate the
symbols you do not have a mind.
>
>There's an important distinction here (or somewhere around here).
>You may recall that Dave Chalmers has argued the programs specify
>a causal structure; consequently, an implementation of a program
>isn't purely syntactic.  You may be making a similar point here,
>about "manipulation".
I consider myself to be going much further, In Chalmers view
the 'causal structure' of the program remain even if the
program is not running - this I do not think can give you
a mind! The program must be running (processing) to have
meaning attached! When processing stops meaning goes with it.

I am only arguing that there is no secret to semantics as
Searle would have you believe! If we have a symbol that
is syntax, add a rule - we now have semantics, add the
actual processing of the rule - we now have meaning/understanding.
(from here it gets complex - but it's better than nothing)
>
>This sort of argument may answer some of Searle's points, such as
>when he says (in the 2nd Reith Lecture) "programs are defined purely
>syntactically".  But when he addresses the systems reply in the same
>lecture, he says something different:
>
>  There's no way the system can get from syntax to semantics.
>  I, as the CPU, have no way of figuring out what any of these
>  symbols mean, but then neither does the whole system.
>
>And earlier in the lecture:
>  ...
>
>  There you are, locked in your room, shuffling your Chinese symbols,
>  ...  On the basis of the situation as I have described it, there's
>  no way you could learn any Chinese simply be manipulating these
>  formal symbols.
>
>The rules that specify the manipulations refer only to syntactic
>properties of the symbols (not to meanings).
>
As I said previously, Searle does not understand the Systems reply!
No one that does understand it would state that Searle would
ever have a hope of understanding Chinese.

If by 'Syntactic properties' you mean semantics then I agree.
I know for a fact that you do not mean just syntax, you
nor even Searle can reduce the rules to syntax!
As I stated before - rules are not enough for meaning,
the rules must be processed for meaning to exist!
>Now, it turns out that I don't think Searle has quite succeeded in
>showing that the system doesn't attach meaning to the symbols (see
>my article of 23 Jan in which I quote the same passeages as above).
>But neither have I seen a convincing explanation of how the system
>could attach meaning.

Well, it goes without saying - you must know what you
are looking for to find it! You must have some way
of recognizing when you find 'meaning'.
Please tell me, what sense of the word 'meaning' will
we use, and I will attempt to explain how the system
can attach that particular meaning.

As you see from my other posts, I am open to suggestion
as to definitions. I will provide them upon demand. The
only thing I object to is someone 20 posts down the line
saying "well, that definition does match mine." without
at the same time providing their definition, or providing
the point of contention.
>
>-- jd


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


