Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!ukc!icdoc!qmc-cs!harlqn!fn From: fn@jung.harlqn.uucp (Mr Beeblebrox) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Chinese room argument Message-ID: Date: 28 Feb 89 10:58:40 GMT References: <2056@star.cs.vu.nl> Sender: news@harlqn.UUCP Organization: Phil Knightbridge of Harlequin Ltd, Cambridge, England Lines: 38 In-reply-to: roelw@cs.vu.nl's message of 20 Feb 89 12:22:15 GMT Having read Searle's Chinese Room argument many years ago I may be a little rusty and I haven't waded through all of the postings about it either. However I remember thinking on first reading the article that one possible argument is as follows :- 1. ... An agent uses the grammar and other 'symbol manipulation' rules to answer questions in an 'unknown' langauge qhich are posed in an 'unknown' language. This is pure symbol manipulation and could be performed by machine but no 'understanding' of the language could be made by the machine. 2. ... The agent has to either 'see' or 'feel' or 'hear' the instructions and in so doing will 'learn' (not necessarily completely correctly) some of the associations between the symbols coming in and those going out. Is this an intelligent act ? If YES then I argue that the machine could do likewise and so be deemed to be intelligent. If NO then proceed with the argument in this manner :- 3. .. The agent has the ability to associate symbols coming in to some correct combinations going out. Outside of the room the agent 'experiences' the same or similar INPUT sequences of symbols and 'observes' similar or possibly new OUTPUT in the form of actions and events. The agent thereby LEARNS the use of these symbols and can COMMUNICATE desires (ok and a really big jump here) emotions. Would this be intelligent behaviour ? I believe it is a natural progression from the room argument and does show signs of what a number of people would call intelligence. I hope that I have been clear enough here and I am sure a number of you will disagree with my argument. I don't mean it to be water tight as at the end of the day my own feeling is that the question of intelligence and awareness (or consciousness if you live in the West where such a word exists) is one of belief. You either believe in the uniqueness of the mind or you don't Thank's for your time