Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!psuvax1!burdvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!aero!venera.isi.edu!smoliar
From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Human-human communication
Message-ID: <5686@venera.isi.edu>
Date: 11 Jun 88 14:10:09 GMT
References: <32403@linus.UUCP> <238@proxftl.UUCP> <1315@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <905@papaya.bbn.com> <198@esosun.UUCP> <920@papaya.bbn.com>
Sender: news@venera.isi.edu
Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar)
Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute
Lines: 32

In article <920@papaya.bbn.com> barr@pineapple.bbn.com (Hunter Barr) writes:
>
>I will now express in language:
>"How to recognize the color red on sight (or any other color)..":
>
>Find a person who knows the meaning of the word "red."  Ask her to
>point out objects which are red, and objects which are not,
>distinguishing between them as she goes along.  If you are physically
>able to distinguish colors, you will soon get the hang of it.
>
As H. L. Menken once said:  "For every complex problem, there is a simple
answer . . . and it's wrong."  There is a lot of subtlety lurking beneath
the simplicity of the above scenario, rather like dust swept under a carpet.
Let us begin with the assumption that all that is required to distinguish
colors is some PHYSICAL ability.  Does that really mean anything;  and, if
so, what does it mean?  I think there is sufficient evidence that we are
not talking strictly about receptors which can distinguish different
frequencies of visible radiation.  If that were all there were to it,
we would have a lot more success with automata distinguishing colors
under the same circumstances as humans (such as major variations in
ambient lighting).  Then there is that casual phrase about getting "the
hang of it."  Given how little we really know about phenomena such as
memory, it is very hard to put much substance into this statement.  (If
we could, we probably wouldn't be studying AI any longer!)

I think Wittgenstein's PHILOSOPHICAL INVESTIGATIONS would be appropriate
reading for this discussion.  Wittgenstein does a much more thorough job
than I could ever do in exploring all the difficulties which plague the
scenario which Hunter Barr has proposed.  I found it a great adventure
(albeit frustrating) to delve into such mysteries of understanding.
Since reading it, I have recommended it to anyone concerned with issues
of communication with humans.