Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!ames!mailrus!wasatch!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!att!homxb!homxc!marty From: marty@homxc.UUCP (M.B.BRILLIANT) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <5755@homxc.UUCP> Date: 28 Feb 89 15:10:38 GMT References: <7645@venera.isi.edu> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Holmdel Lines: 69 From article <7645@venera.isi.edu>, by smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar): > In article <230@nbires.nbi.com> matt@nbires.UUCP (Matthew Meighan) writes: >>In article <7586@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) >>writes: >> >>> . . . An argument which is based on assertions >>> of what it "obvious" to introspection is no argument at all >> >>Can you prove this, or is it just obvious to you? >> >>It seems to me that the assertion that only objectively-provable >>things are "true" is a totally subjective one, hence false by its >>own criteria. What evidence is there for this belief? >> > TOUCHE! This is a well-turned argument, forcing me to retreat to reconsider > what it was I REALLY meant! Ultimately, I am trying to get away from using > the word "obvious" too carelessly; but in doing so I seem to have fallen into > the same trap! So how can I get myself out of it? I have a suggestion or two on how to get out of the trap. To begin with, I would suggest avoiding the word "obvious." Whenever a word has different meanings to different people or in different contexts, or otherwise is hard to define, using that word is just asking for trouble. Second, I would suggest falling back to some of the classical ideas of logic, philosophy of science, epistemology, etc. The real basics. There is deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning. You can't prove anything without postulates, because nothing is objectively provable except the subjective fact that you think, therefore you exist, and you can't prove that to anybody but yourself. In the classical paradigm, science treats the objective world primarily in an inductive style. That is, you first make some observations. This is a subjective act. If others can repeat the observations and agree that they are the same, you have, by common consent, an objective fact. Then you think about the observations until you discover a set of postulates which, if processed deductively, would predict the observations. You have just created a theory. You can in fact create several theories to explain the same facts, and then you can use Occam's Razor to choose among them. But Occam's Razor itself is a postulate. So nothing is obvious. You can't agree on conclusions unless you first agree about facts, and then agree on an explanation for the facts. And all the conclusions are tentative. If you want to prove, from a thought-experiment that many people think could never happen, that something that does mere "symbol" manipulation can never "understand" anything, you are opening up a can of worms. In the first place, the observation is not factual. In the second place, the postulates do not lead deductively to an explanation of the presumed facts. If you cannot agree that Searle with a book could fool a native Chinese speaker, you have no facts to explain. If you cannot agree on the definitions of the words, you have no theory to make deductions from. What, please, are the facts? In my humble opinion (IMHO), all we agree on is that we have partial successes, a lot of ambition, and a lot of uncertainty. M. B. Brilliant Marty AT&T-BL HO 3D-520 (201) 949-1858 Home (201) 946-8147 Holmdel, NJ 07733 att!homxc!marty Disclaimer: Opinions stated herein are mine unless and until my employer explicitly claims them; then I lose all rights to them.