Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rutgers!mcnc!rti!ntpdvp1!sandyz
From: sandyz@ntpdvp1.UUCP (Sandy Zinn)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince
Summary: "semantics as shared stuff"
Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room, semantics, Putnam, Lakoff, model theory
Message-ID: <352@ntpdvp1.UUCP>
Date: 20 Mar 90 21:16:11 GMT
References: <2080@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: Northern Telecom DMS-10 Div., Raleigh, NC
Lines: 67

> (Ken Presting) writes:
> >I'd say that this is a case of changing the implementation, or changing
> >the language, rather than any vagueness in the concepts of syntax and
> >semantics.
In article <2080@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
> If you start with meaningless, uninterpreted symbols it's hard to see
> how they end up referring to what we think we do.
> Dangerous Things_.  And if computers started off with uninterpreted
> symbols, how would they ever know whether "cat" means cat or cherry or
> whatever?  I think it's right to question whether connecting up some
> cameras, robot arms, etc would do it, because (as Searle points out)
> they just produce more meaningless symbols from the computer's point
> of view (so to speak).
 
Consider Wittgenstein's assertions in this context:  there is no logical
reference between the formal system (uninterpreted symbols) and "reality".
But reference (albeit an alogical one) does occur:  we establish reference
by Usage.  If you and I agree that "cat" refers to a cherry, then "cat"
attains meaning.  As the Witt said, "It's a question of who's the Master,
the Man or the Words" (not an exact quote perhaps but I distinctly recall 
the (chauvinistic) noun choices).

Verbal symbols are interpreted according to past associations, which is
to say they achieve meaning by usage.  It is the SHARING of associations
which makes human communication possible.  These shared associations are
the context for the verbal symbol.  Within that context, the symbol has
meaning, i.e., it has usage.  In a different context, the symbol may have
no meaning, i.e., no usage, or a different meaning.

A lot of effort has to be expended (as we see in our postings here) to
correlate our associations and therefore our interpretations of words.
Just think of the long and tortuous thread on "Intelligence".

Consider this:  the symbols crunched by a computer *have a usage*.
Therefore they have a reference, and have meaning.  But they do not
have meaning in the same context as they do for us humans.  The
computer has a very limited context, a very limited *universe of
discourse*.  But it is probably a mistake to state baldly that the
symbols are "meaningless and uninterpreted".  They ARE interpreted
by the computer.  We just don't think much of its store of associations.

I'll throw this into another (isomorphic) context:  the Plains Indians had
very different culture from the white "Americans" who encountered them in
the 1800's.  The Native Americans had very complex systems of ethical and
religious symbols, referenced in rituals, art, and warfare.  But because
their context was so different from that of the whites, the whites saw the
Native Americans as barbarians, savages, uncivilized half-humans.  The
whites refused to attribute human meaning to a set of symbols which did
not seem to reference European-style associations.

What we are looking for, I think, in AI, is to get computers to associate
to the same systems of meaning that we do.  We want them to share our 
universe of discourse.  We want them to connect their symbol usage with our
symbol usages.  What level of sharing would be legitimate?  How close
does their interpretation have to be?  If computers' symbolic exchanges
became very complex, and seemed to refer to some reality outside of the
exchange system, but were as strange to us as the Sioux were to Custer,
would we be satisfied?

Consider my pet notion:  we are most likely to achieve "Artificial
Intelligence" by focusing on getting computers to negotiate relationships
with one another.

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @
    Sandra Zinn              |   "The squirming facts
    (yep these are my ideas  |      exceed the squamous mind"
     they only own my kybd)  |         -- Wallace Stevens