Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!pasteur!ames!elroy!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!smoliar From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <7698@venera.isi.edu> Date: 6 Mar 89 17:45:28 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@netnews.upenn.edu> <764@htsa.uucp> <7586@venera.isi.edu> <230@nbires.nbi.com> <7645@venera.isi.edu> <2498@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> Sender: news@venera.isi.edu Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute Lines: 74 In article <2498@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton) writes: >In article <7645@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) writes: >Thus, I would argue that the manifestation of intelligent >>behavior cannot be observed the way we observe the size of a physical object. > >GOTCHA! OK Stephen, so what are the implications for this of a science of >Mind? Gee, Gilbert, I don't see what has gotten you so excited, unless it is a rush of triumph at the possibility that someone who devotes at least PART of his time to trying to build software models of mental processes might agree with you on something! I think your question is a good one, and I shall be curious to see if you are sympathetic to any of my answers. However, let me first state that it is not my intention to lay down a manifesto for the study of mind. Rather, I shall simply set down a few rules I am trying to live by (not always successfully); and I would encourage others to extend or modify the list. 1. If we are to engage in the study of mind, we must begin by being VERY CAREFUL in our choice of words. We are playing a game on a terrain in which intuitions can be more like land mines than landmarks. Regardless of whether or not we agree with this theories, Marvin Minsky makes a very important point in THE SOCIETY OF MIND when he illustrates the ways in which the study of mind may be misguided by confused assumptions about what is simple and what is complicated. As I remarked in an earlier article, Minsky handles the word "understand" extremely delicately in his book; and given the treatment that word has received from the likes of Searle and Harnad, I can only admire him for his caution. I am not necessarily implying that we have to deny everything and go back to COGITO ERGO SUM, but it would seem that we lack the appropriate blend of Cartesian scepticism and productive humility in our current activities. 2. Because intuitions are so dangerous here, I think it is also important that we be just as careful when we try to follow someone else's argument as we are when we try to formulate out own. I am beginning to find Stevan's games of verbal ping pong with the rest of the world tiresome to the point that they are no longer productive. He is obviously experiencing great frustration because he feels that just about everyone who is responding to his remarks does not understand him (and, of course, he KNOWS what he understands :-)). Unfortunately, the way he deals with the situation reminds me of a line from BEYOND THE FRINGE in which some proper English club types are trying to communicate with a Russian pianist: "Say it slower and louder. Then he'll understand!" Perhaps if Stevan took a bit more time to try to communicate with his opponents ON THEIR OWN CHANNEL OF COMMUNICATION, so to speak, all of us might get more out of the exchange. 3. Finally, if we are interested in the study of mind, let us not waste our time on the politics of social relations. Having seen Searle in front of an audience, I have been able to observe the man as a performer; but I try to be careful not to confuse a persuasive performance with a convincing argument. Not to pick on Searle, I would observe that I have also seen Herb Simon in action (since Jack Campin chose to respond to one of his recent abstracts); and I suspect that any audience of eager students could be as easily swayed by Simon as they could be by Searle. As with Brutus and Antony, it will boil down to who gets to say his piece last. The point is that none of this really advances our study of mind. It is simply a source of recreational ego-trips. The tragedy is that such ego-trips often determine the course of research funds; but that just demonstrates the depressing state of the world, in which the questions we try to ask are dictated by a handful of unthinking organzations with the power to dole out funds. I realize this is all highly idealistic. Probably none of us can live up to these ideals, but can we ever live up to ANY ideals? We need a lot less lecturing and a lot more questioning. Furthermore, we probably need to devote a lot more time to reading and a bit less to writing.