Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!botter!star.cs.vu.nl!roelw@cs.vu.nl
From: roelw@cs.vu.nl
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Chinese Room argument
Message-ID: <2121@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 3 Mar 89 16:21:01 GMT
Sender: roelw@cs.vu.nl
Reply-To: roelw@cs.vu.nl ()
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 23

It is part of the definition of a Turing machine (TM) that it manipulates
symbols on the basis of their form only. The denotation of the symbols, and of
expressions built from these symbols, is not relevant for the outcome of the 
TM computation.

How then could a universal TM (i.e. a computer) fed with a program which can
answer questions in Chinese ever come to "know" the denotation of the symbols
it is manipulating? The outcome of its computation is invariant under changes 
of denotation of the symbols it manipulates; the people programming the UTM may
change the denotation of symbol xyz from chair to table or to anything
else, without it making the slightest difference to the computation.

In the heated discussion so far, I have seen no answer to the above simple 
argument.

It seems to me that those who believe a UTM could be programmed into
understanding the meaning of the symbols it manipulates, either 
1. use a nonstandard definition of what a TM is, or 
2. use a nonstandard definition of what the denotation of an expression is, or
3. are in the grip of an ideology which prevents them from seeing a simple 
truth.

Roel Wieringa