Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!delmarva.com!internetMCI!newsfeed.internetmci.com!news.sprintlink.net!tank.news.pipex.net!pipex!sunsite.doc.ic.ac.uk!yama.mcc.ac.uk!thor.cf.ac.uk!clu.cf.ac.uk!liny
From: liny@clu.cf.ac.uk (Yuen Lin)
Subject: Re: Quine's holism
Sender: news@cf.ac.uk (USENET News System)
Message-ID: <DGp4qq.G0x@cf.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 1995 12:44:50 GMT
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: lily.clu.cf.ac.uk
References: <DG8C7s.KFC@cf.ac.uk> <462830$d3i@pollux.usc.edu>
Organization: Computational Linguistics Unit, U of Wales - Cardiff, Cardiff, UK
Lines: 30

>In article <DG8C7s.KFC@cf.ac.uk>, Yuen Lin <liny@clu.cf.ac.uk> wrote:
>>My second difficulty is with holism in general, and with its computational
>>implication in specific.  ...  when will such computation terminate?
>
>Our real human understanding of language may not be algorithmic.
>
>It may or may not be possible to implement "real understanding"
>algorithmically.  It may or may not be possible to implement
>"representation of understanding" algorithmically.  Let's start asking
>the important questions instead of blindly continuing on where so many
>have failed.


I cannot see how understanding can excape from computation. 
Take a common example, our understanding of "chairs" includes a
a lot of knowledge about them. We know that chairs have four legs,
they are usually made of wood, they come in different shapes,
they are used to sit on, they are solid enough so that when you
sit on a chair it will not crush, they don't speak, so on and so
on. When we hear the word "chair", we do envoke some, through not
all, of such knowledge, if we are able to understand the word.
(Compare with the situation when you hear "bglokt", a word I just
invented: do you understand what the word mean?)
I do believe that this process is computational: what else could
it be?


Yuen Lin


