Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!mailrus!purdue!muttiah From: muttiah@cs.purdue.EDU (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Recursive Searles, or what? Keywords: understanding Message-ID: <9170@medusa.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 5 Jan 90 20:58:03 GMT References: <12679@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <12702@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <7661@sdcsvax.UCSD.Edu> Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Reply-To: muttiah@cs.purdue.edu (Ranjan Samuel Muttiah) Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 65 >Prove to me the Chinese Room does not understand, without >resorting to asking Searle-inside whether (or not) he does. --- Thomas Hobbes was undertaking a similar task without computers of course! We moderns have a lot to learn :-). Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz wrote a letter to Hobbes in the form of a dialogue. (It is presumed that that A is really Hobbes). It was written in 1677 when Leibniz was just 24 years old! A. If you were given a string and required ti shape it in such such a way that it turned on itslef and enclosed as much space as possible, how would you shape it ? B. Into a circle. For the geometers show that the circle is the shape that has the greatest capacity for a given circumference. And it there were two islands that could be circumnavigated, one circular, the other square, the circular island would contain more territory. A. Do you think that this is true, even if you are not thinking about it ? B. Of course. It was true even before geometers had demonstrated it or before people had observed it. A. So you think that truth and falsity are in things, and NOT IN THOUGHTS ? B. Yes, indeed. A. Then a thing is false ? B. Not a thing, I think, but a thought or propositioni about a thing. A. And so falsity pertains to thoughts, not to things. B. I am forced to admit it! A. Therefore truth as well ? B. So it seems. But I hesitate over whether this consequence holds. A. Now, when a question has been posed, and before you are certain of your opinion, aren't you in doubt about whether something is true of false ? B. Certainly. A. Therefore, you know that the same subject is capable both of truth and falsity, until one of the two is determined by the particular nature of the question. B. I know and I admit that if falsity pertains to thoughts, then truth pertains to thoughts, and not to things. A. But this contradicts what you said earlier, that even something no one might be thinking of can be true. B. You have confused me. --- ok. I will continue if you think this dialogue is of help.