Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!apple!hercules!gilham From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Recursive Searles, or what? Message-ID: Date: 9 Jan 90 18:08:39 GMT References: <12679@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <12702@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <1224@oravax.UUCP> <1933@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca> Sender: usenet@csl.sri.com Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA. Lines: 30 In-reply-to: utility@quiche.cs.mcgill.ca's message of 9 Jan 90 02:14:39 GMT Well, it seems as if we've gotten to the point where we agree that something other than just the physical entity (entities) in the Chinese room are doing the understanding. The consensus seems to be that some ``pattern'' is doing the understanding. The question comes down to what a pattern is. To me the problem seems to be that a pattern doesn't exist without some mind to perceive it. This is what I think Ronald Bodkin is saying in this quotation: ``I would say that pattern has an epistemological status, in that it is perceived by minds, and if there is a potential for any mind or anything which can "think" to discover it, it exists, but that pattern is not ontological (i.e. essentially part of the nature of being) -- so that in the universe after energy death there is no pattern.'' He then goes on to say: ``So this is why one can speak of pattern and yet not be speaking of a mind-stuff, since that DOES postulate a somewhat more "concrete" reality for that stuff.'' The alternatives seem to be that either a pattern has some independent existence of its own (concrete reality) or a mind is necessary to perceive it. On the one hand, I say we have dualism; on the other hand, I say we have the ``hermeneutical hall of mirrors'', where we project our own thought processes onto something in the outside world. -Fred Gilham gilham@csl.sri.com