Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!lll-winken!unixhub!shelby!msi.umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!buddha!miodeen From: miodeen@buddha.ncc.umn.edu (Mike Odeen) Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy Subject: Re: Searle's Chinese Room Message-ID: <1523@buddha.ncc.umn.edu> Date: 10 Nov 90 17:26:14 GMT References: <7014@castle.ed.ac.uk> <16197@mentor.cc.purdue.edu> <3952@media-lab.MEDIA.MIT.EDU> <57@tdatirv.UUCP> Reply-To: miodeen@buddha.ncc.umn.edu (Mike Odeen) Organization: University of Minnesota, Nutrition Coordinating Center Lines: 17 I've always felt that Searle's argument falls apart when you deny that anything like "meaning" or "intentionality" actually exist. Meaning results from an interaction between symbols. Look at a dictionary. It wont give you the meaning of any word, but it will provide you with other words, setting up an association between them. No one element carries any meaning, just an association value with other elements. Something like what happens in the dictionary caould easily be instantiated in some kind of network model of the brain. "Meaning" if it exists anywhere would just be a complex interaction between symbols in the brain. -- Michael J. Odeen miodeen@buddha.ncc.umn.edu