Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!usc!apple!uokmax!metnet!p0.f30.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG!David.Combs
From: David.Combs@p0.f30.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG (David Combs)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Chinese Room
Message-ID: <162.25B265FA@metnet.FIDONET.ORG>
Date: 15 Jan 90 18:50:25 GMT
Sender: ufgate@metnet.FIDONET.ORG (newsout1.26)
Organization: FidoNet node 1:147/30.0
Lines: 27

I feel the Chinese Room implies subtlties which aid whatever Searle
feels are valid arguments against Strong AI.  The Chinese Room
implies language as a prerequisite to thought and understanding.
I find it hard to "understand" what it was like not to posess the
concept of being able to ride a bicycle.  At one time I did understand
what it was like.  Similarly, at one time I did not posess the concept
of language -- and yet I maintain that I did posess intelligence and
that I was capable of understanding.  If I were placed in the Chinese
Room at birth, the Chinese Room would have invariably failed the
Turing test.  And as far as I know, it would be impossible to apply
any test to a newborn which would prove the existance of intelligence
to any degree of acuracy, at least not by direct interaction with
the infant.  Language is an add-on feature, a command shell, if you
will -- completely separate from the intelligence -- and so I
assert that testing for "understanding" or "thought" should exclude
the search for things not inherant to intelligence.
 
--Dsc--

a



--  
David Combs - via FidoNet node 1:147/10
UUCP: ...apple.com!uokmax!metnet!30.0!David.Combs
INTERNET: David.Combs@p0.f30.n147.z1.FIDONET.ORG