Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!uupsi!sunic!tut!funic!router!opmvax!ylikoski
From: ylikoski@csc.fi
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <129.26a5feab@csc.fi>
Date: 19 Jul 90 18:40:43 GMT
Lines: 52

I posted this in the summer, but it probably did not make it to the
network.  My apologies if this reaches anyone twice.  It is a comment
on the discussion involving "Hayes vs. Searle".

I think I can show that the Chinese Room argument merely shows that a
very restricted system does not understand, but this does not prove
that no computer system is capable of understanding.  Searle's main
point is that computer programs merely manipulate symbols (they are
syntactic), without reference to meaning (they do not attach semantics
to the symbols), and so are fundamentally incapable of understanding.

The human brain attaches semantics to neuron impulse trains and its
symbols.  I would claim that if we build a computer system that attaches
semantics to its symbols in the same way as the human brain attaches
semantics to its symbols, then we have a computer program that
understands.

I invite the reader to carry out some simple introspection.  Let a
human, say John, read a book involving real analysis and understand
Rolle's theorem.  What gives the semantics to the symbol strurtures that
exist in John's head concerning Rolle's theorem?

It seems to me that two things give the semantics to John's symbol
structures:

1) They are connected to other symbol structures in his mind.  John
understands how Rolle's theorem is related to other theorems involving
real analysis, he has problem solving schemata involving how to apply
Rolle's theorem, and so forth.  Many AI researchers seem to support
the opinion that the symbol structures in the human mind are semantic
networks, and R. Carnap's meaning postulates are very similar to links
in semantic networks, I wonder if Searle is familiar with Carnap's
work.

2) Many agencies in John's Society of Mind possess capabilities
involving Rolle's theorem: for example his Inference agency knows how
to utilize Rolle's theorem while proving simple theorems.

If we build an Artificial Intelligence program that has the same
problem solving capabilities as John --- and I believe this can be
done fairly straightforwardly with the current state of the art of AI
technology --- does our program understand Rolle's theorem?  In a
sense, it does, and it gives semantics to the symbol structures
involving Rolle's theorem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Antti (Andy) Ylikoski              ! Internet: YLIKOSKI@CSC.FI
Helsinki University of Technology  ! UUCP    : ylikoski@opmvax.kpo.fi
Helsinki, Finland                  !
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Artificial Intelligence people do it with resolution.