From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max Sun Dec  1 13:05:49 EST 1991
Article 1667 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca rec.arts.books:10769 sci.philosophy.tech:1175 comp.ai.philosophy:1667
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!psgrain!qiclab!nosun!hilbert!max
>From: max@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com (Max Webb)
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books,sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle (was Re: Daniel Dennett (was Re: Comme
Message-ID: <1991Nov26.210424.5913@hilbert.cyprs.rain.com>
Date: 26 Nov 91 21:04:24 GMT
References: <YAMAUCHI.91Nov24022756@magenta.cs.rochester.edu> <JMC.91Nov24195716@SAIL.Stanford.EDU> <1991Nov25.075639.5861@husc3.harvard.edu>
Organization: Cypress Semiconductor Northwest, Beaverton Oregon
Lines: 35

In article <1991Nov25.075639.5861@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>JMC:
>>In Searle's hypothetical case, the man's ordinary personality is
>>interpreting a description the hypothetical Chinese personality that
>>has different knowledge from the man's ordinary personality.  There
>>should be no difficulty in understanding this.
>
>How do you individuate a personality?

Didn't you just read it? The 'interpreted' chinese personality
has it's procedural and declarative parts encoded in a representation
different from the encoding of the hosts original personality. Since
the encoding is different, and no translation is supplied, the bodies
of data/knowledge/whatever are kept distinct. THAT is why the original
personality in the host doesn't end up with any kind of knowledge
of chinese.

If you supplied the man mappings to/from his original representation
to the new one (chinese->english, and english->chinese dictionaries
and grammar rewriting rules), the boundary would disappear, and knowledge
encoded in the chinese construct (but that was unavailable to the host)
would be available to the host, and the host would be able to apply
its knowledge to tasks facing the chinese construct. In other words,
some sort of 'rote' chinese competence would be attained by the host.

Your claim that the rule system is 'internal' to the person just because
they have memorized it is wrong. It is not internalized in a natural
language competence sense until you supply mappings to the rest of
the mental domains an intelligence has, allowing it to be functionally
integrated. When you take _that_ into account, Searles argument falls
apart.

>: Mikhail Zeleny

	Max


