Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!munnari.oz.au!metro!macuni!mqccsunb!lhamey
From: lhamey@mqccsunb.mqcc.mq.oz.au (Len Hamey)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: The Turing Test is no good!
Message-ID: <413@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz>
Date: 21 Aug 90 03:57:08 GMT
References: <2870@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU> <3211@gara.une.oz.au> <1179@zeus.usq.edu.au>
Sender: news@macuni.mqcc.mq.oz
Distribution: comp
Organization: Macquarie University, Sydney
Lines: 45

In article <1179@zeus.usq.edu.au> s64421@zeus.usq.edu.au (house ron) writes:
>pnettlet@gara.une.oz.au (Philip Nettleton) writes:
>
>>You see, Searl's experiment means nothing because although Searl, as part
>>of the system, knows nothing about Chinese, the system as a whole does.
>
>Now we're just going roud in circles!  This exact claim is answered by Searle
>in his original document.

Actually, I would dispute that Searle answered the claim in his original
document.  He claimed that, even if the program was loaded into his mind
(he learned the rules) then he still would not 'understand' so therefore
the room does not 'understand'.  But, why does he not 'understand'?  It
is because the program, as he chose to load it, did not link with the
other programs already in his mind -- he could not think of a horse when
he saw the chinese symbol for horse BECAUSE HE MADE NO ASSOCIATION BETWEEN
the chinese symbol and his other understanding.  So, Searle is now running
two distinct programs, which each have their own basis of understanding.

Now, suppose that Searle was to, after learning the rules of chinese,
add symbol grounding to his new program -- i.e. learn relationships between
the symbols of chinese and the symbols of his other program (the one that
he calls his self) -- what happens?  Suddenly he finds that he understands!
But have the rules of chinese changed? No... yet, he may well choose
(on the basis of this other program, his self) to disobey the externally
imposed program at some points, and answer in a way that reflect his
'self' program..  e.g. If asked "Are you a man?", the chinese room
program may respond, "no, I am a woman" whereas the Searle 'self'
program would presumably respond, "yes".

So.. I conclude that when Searle says that he still does not understand
chinese after absorbing the chinese room program, it is because there
is insufficient cross-linking between that program and the existing
'self' program.  Searle's error is to assume that if he is implementing
a program then that program can only be understanding something if that
program is cross-linked to his own 'self' program which he assumes is
really understanding.

I find myself wondering... do schitzophreniacs (sp?) implement multiple
programs?  Can one personality of a schitzo person understand something
without the other personality having understood it?  What about split
brains?  Seems like humans can implement multiple distinct programs,
each of which understands independently of the other.  Not pleasant, though.

Len Hamey.