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: <2184@star.cs.vu.nl>
Date: 20 Mar 89 17:12:49 GMT
Sender: roelw@cs.vu.nl
Reply-To: roelw@cs.vu.nl ()
Organization: VU Informatica, Amsterdam
Lines: 41

In <3432@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) writes
in response to my earlier posting:

>"The general result is that a symbol-manipulating device is not affected
>"by the denotation you or anyone else give to the symbols it manipulates.
>
>Correct that there is no difference to the computation.  Incorrect
>that the device is unaffected.  It interacts with the world.  Traffic
>light changes to red -- UTM interprets this as 'green', proceeds
>across intersection.  Crash.

That's true, I should have written that the *computation* is not affected,
instead of the *device* not being affected. But does this imply that the
symbol-manipulation process has access to the denotation of the symbols?
I said earlier that meanings are not merely in the head but are also social
institutions. You replied:

>Precisely.  So you do understand.  But the robot is somehow different
>from persons in this regard ??

That's precisely what is at issue, and what the Chinese room argument tries to
show, viz. that people *are* different in this regard. I think this is the
reason why the dispute runs around in circles most of the time: The statement
that a symbol-manipulation process can realize thought is trivially true once
we assume that human beings think by manipulating symbols. Under that
asumption, there is no difference between a symbol-manipulating robot and a
human being. But the assumption has a peculiar status:

1. If it is true, it is not analytically true, i.e. it does not follow from the
meaning of "thought" and "symbol manipulation." So the assumption that people
think by manipulating symbols is a synthetic proposition.
2. Those who claim it to be true, claim it to be a priori true. If it is
claimed to be true, rather than a working hypothesis which directs research,
then its truth is claimed not on the basis of empirically validated facts
(though it is hoped that these facts which be found in the future).

So the assumption that people think by manipulating symbols is a synthetic a
priori, and this causes people who believe it to interpret every argument or
fact in a way diametrically opposed to the way disbelievers interpret them.

Roel Wieringa