Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!mailrus!iuvax!cogsci!dave From: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Summary: Meaningless scratches strike back Message-ID: <18119@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Date: 2 Mar 89 00:43:42 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <18073@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu> Sender: root@iuvax.cs.indiana.edu Reply-To: dave@cogsci.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) Organization: Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University Lines: 43 harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: >Of course semantics arises out of nonsemantic objects. But there are >nonsemantic objects and nonsemantic objects -- and scratches on paper >(even when implemented as symbol-crunching computer programs) do not >seem to be the right kinds of objects. I think I'll just let this 'argument' stand as it is, displayed in all its glory. > Likewise there are patterns and patterns. "A pattern is a pattern is a pattern" - G. Stein. So: we both agree... meaningless NEURONS are related in COMPLEX ways to form representational PATTERNS which support a mind but meaningless SYMBOLS are related in COMPLEX ways to form representational PATTERNS which...? I leave the reader to draw her own conclusion. >[On complexity supporting information.] >But necessary conditions are not sufficient conditions. And mere >complexity will not you a mind get. There's complexity and complexity; >and a lot more conceptual work to do before you have a viable model >for the mind. Indeed you're right, and I don't expect this problem to be solved overnight. But see my forthcoming "Mind, Pattern and Information" (tentatively retitled "The First-Person and the Third-Person: A Reconciliation"). Not all complexity supports information, and not all complexity supports a mind either. But at the bottom line the criterion lies in the _structure_ of the complex system and not in the raw materials. Dave Chalmers Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition Indiana University