Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!sun!pitstop!sundc!seismo!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!htsa!fransvo From: fransvo@htsa.uucp (Frans van Otten) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Fallacy in Chinese Room experiment. Summary: Struck in words and symbols Message-ID: <805@htsa.uucp> Date: 13 Mar 89 20:50:15 GMT References: <1059@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> Reply-To: fransvo@htsa.UUCP (Frans van Otten) Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam Netherlands Lines: 61 Keywords: Stevan Harnad writes: > ... a specific candidate for the missing function might be: nonsymbolic > function (e.g., transduction, analog processing, A/D, D/A, motor > effectors). ... In my paper I give reasons why grounding a symbol system > is not just a simple matter of hooking on peripherals to a symbol-cruncher. > The nonsymbolic function may be INTRINSIC to TTT-passing power (and hence > mental function) and may not be isolable as independent symbolic and > nonsymbolic "modules." [...] > ... Suppose we had to learn Chinese ... our only source of information > were a Chinese-Chinese dictionary ... looking up (meaningless) symbols ... > all we could find ... still more meaningless symbols. ... It's obvious > that some of the symbols (the elementary ones) must be grounded in > something other than still more symbols. Finally I understand what you mean by "symbolic" vs. "non-symbolic". With "symbols" you mean the (representations of) (English) words, and so with "symbolic" you mean something (some concept or whatever) representated using those symbols (words). With "non-symbolic" you mean something _not_ representated by words, but some other way. I fully agree with the idea. I wrote: understanding requires representation in _internal_ symbols. What I mean by "internal symbols" is what you mean by "something non-symbolic". Now this makes me think of some model from the psychotherapeutical world. This theory is about "primary wordforms" and "secondary wordforms". Basically, a primary wordform is something you experienced, something you physically felt, with your body. You don't have a word for it, you only know the experience. Later, someone can tell you: "this, what you are feeling right now, is called ...". Now you know the secondary wordform. (We also "invented" a tertiary wordform: something you know the word for, but not the experience). So this seemingly supports your choice of candidate for the missing function. Seemingly, because this is what is neccesary for _human_ understanding, but not for understanding which can be done by computers. When we talk about physics, e.g. speed, you may want to think of your bicycle. Then you map the abstract concept "speed" to _your_ "real" world. But why would this be neccesary for understanding physics ? Why do you think physics is so hard nowadays ? At the sub-sub-atomic level, you can't map anything into something of _your_ real world ! Does that make physics un-understandable ? I doubt it. But it will get more difficult. Abstract thinking has always been difficult for many people. Now I can explain where you went wrong. You say "non-symbolic", then you think: "not representated by something that can be a symbol neccesary for understanding... computers work with bytes, very symbolic... computers cannot understand ! Eureka !" The point you see is very correct: representation by something else then the word-symbols. The point you don't see: what you call "non-symbolic" can actually be represented by neuron states or whatever physical entity you want. This _has_ to be true, because human understanding happens in your head and there is nothing un-physical there ! -- Frans van Otten Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam Technische en Maritieme Faculteit fransvo@htsa.uucp