Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!ils.nwu.edu!shafto
From: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Re^2: Chinese Room Experiment: empirical tests
Message-ID: <539@anaxagoras.ils.nwu.edu>
Date: 4 Jan 91 21:20:01 GMT
References: <1990Dec3.134710.25467@canon.co.uk> <1990Dec4.184809.28874@agate.berkeley.edu> <3461@b17a.INGR.COM> <7330@plains.NoDak.edu>
Sender: news@ils.nwu.edu
Reply-To: shafto@ils.nwu.edu (Eric Shafto)
Organization: The Institute for the Learning Sciences
Lines: 32

In article <7330@plains.NoDak.edu>, person@plains.NoDak.edu (Brett G. Person) writes:
>      Twas brllig and the slithy toves
>         Did gyre and gimble in the wabe.
>      All mimsy were the borogoves
>         And the mome raths outgrabe.
 
> Try translating this.  These are all valid words, most just aren't used in a
> sane way. So that the overall effect is nonsense verse.  In fact, Carroll
> gave the world a new word in chortle.  Which now has a vernacular meaning
> substantially close to his intended meaning.  Thus, he effected language. A
> symbol (chortle) came to mean a certain type of laughter.

> This, I will contend, is the Chineese room in action.  None of us really
> understand Carroll, but we can still enjoy his works.

> Flame away!

Well, if you insist:  They are not all valid words.  In fact, most
of the nouns and verbs are made up by combining parts of other words.
At least, according to Carroll.  Leave out and, or, the, to be,
did, and t'was, and you have almost no real words at all.

Your point is well taken, though.  We native English speakers get
something like meaning out of the poem anyway.

> Brett G. Person
> North Dakota State University
> uunet!plains!person | person@plains.bitnet | person@plains.nodak.edu

Regards,
Eric Shafto
Institute for the Learning Sciences