Xref: utzoo comp.ai:5334 talk.philosophy.misc:3390 sci.philosophy.tech:1850
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ames!henry.jpl.nasa.gov!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder
From: byoder@smcnet.UUCP (Brian Yoder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.philosophy.misc,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Summary: Are program "symbols" really understood by humans?
Keywords: software hardware symbols consciousness
Message-ID: <482@smcnet.UUCP>
Date: 3 Jan 90 05:50:31 GMT
References: <83367@linus.UUCP> <1989Dec18.014229.18058@athena.mit.edu> <979@metapsy.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Santa Monica College Telecom, Santa Monica, CA.
Lines: 62

In article <979@metapsy.UUCP>, sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
> In article <24Yy02PR76bt01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com
> (Ken Presting) writes:
> >In article <968@metapsy.UUCP>sarge@metapsy.UUCP (Sarge Gerbode) writes:
> 
> I may have a somewhat radical viewpoint on this, but to me a symbol
> is defined as such by the intention of the conscious being using it.
> A symbol is a perceivable or detectable entity that is used to direct
> attention to a particular reality or potential reality.
> 
> Charges, current pulses, etc., are rightly regraded as symbols only to
> the extent that they are intended (ultimately) to be comprehended by
> some sort of conscious entity as indicating certain realities (or
> potential relaities).  In the absence of such intentions, they are not
> symbols but mere charges, current pulses, etc.

Consider the real implementation of most programs though.  THey are written
in a high-level language like C, Pascal, FORTRAN, or COBOL. That's what the
programmer knew about.  The Compiler turns those symbols into symbols
that no human (usually) ever looks at or understands.  The end user sees
neither of these, he sees the user interface and understands what the 
{{program is doing from yet another perspective.  What is the intelligence
that understands the machine language symbols?

One more step higher in complexity is to consider systems with complex
memories that load memory as they go (virtual memory kinds of systems)
which have a different physical configuration each time they are executed.

One more step takes us to self-modifying languages like LISP which can 
execute and build statements in their own language.  No human ever sees 
these intermediate symbols, but those constructs are processed and
are reflected in the behavior of the program.

Finally, we have really dynamic systems like neural networks that aren't
so much "loaded with a program" as "taught" what to do.  They like us,
don't have a static program controling the behavior outputs.  In a sense
our brains become "different machines" from minute to minute as we 
learn and act.  (Some might say that large portions of the population
remain changeless through video stimulation, but this effect has not
yet been proven :-)

Are all of these working with "symbols"?  If not which are? Is it 
only humans that can identify a symbol?  What if all of the records
about punched cards were destroyed while card readers still existed,
would the little holes in card decks still be symbols? After the readers
were destroyed?

Brian Yoder



> -- 
> Sarge Gerbode -- UUCP:  pyramid!thirdi!metapsy!sarge
> Institute for Research in Metapsychology
> 431 Burgess Drive; Menlo Park, CA 94025


-- 
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-
| Brian Yoder                 | answers *byoder();                            |
| uunet!ucla-cs!smcnet!byoder | He takes no arguments and returns the answers |
-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-<>-