Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!samsung!brutus.cs.uiuc.edu!apple!hercules!gilham
From: gilham@csl.sri.com (Fred Gilham)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Can Machines Think?
Message-ID: <GILHAM.90Jan9105216@cassius.csl.sri.com>
Date: 9 Jan 90 18:52:16 GMT
References: <83367@linus.UUCP> <1989Dec18.014229.18058@athena.mit.edu> <GILHAM.90Jan3110834@cassius.csl.sri.com> <515@smcnet.UUCP>
Sender: usenet@csl.sri.com
Distribution: na
Organization: Computer Science Lab, SRI International, Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 43
In-reply-to: byoder@smcnet.UUCP's message of 9 Jan 90 11:39:27 GMT


Brian Yoder writes:

===============
Brain containing      Paper containing     Disk containing 
Symbols         =====>Symbols         ====>Symbols        ===+
                                                             |
                                                        Memory containing
                                                        translated symbols
                                                        (Object Code)
                                                             | 
Brain Containing      Screen containing     Computations     | 
Symbols         <=====Symbols          <====Express Symbols==+
===============
I reply:

Brain containing      Paper containing     Disk containing 
Symbols         =====>marks          ====> magnetic domains==+
                                                             |
                                                        Memory containing
                                                        electric charges
                                                             | 
Brain Containing      Screen containing     Computations     | 
Symbols         <=====Light patterns   <====(transformation==+
                                            from physical states
                                            to other physical
                                            states)

Using a debugger doesn't really change this.  It is only when the
light patterns get translated into symbols in our heads that the
symbols exist.  We use physical states to represent symbols.  When you
use a debugger, you impose a transformation from physical states of
the computer's memory to other physical states (light patterns) on the
screen or whatever.  These light patterns have no intrinsic meaning,
only that we impose on them.  If you assert otherwise, I don't see how
you can escape the conclusion that the physical patterns have meaning
for everyone, since they themselves embody meaning.  But this cannot
be true.  For example, when I read some mathematical text, I may see
some fancy squiggle.  My first task is to find out what the author
means by this fancy squiggle.  If the meaning were implicit in the
fancy squiggle, I wouldn't have this problem.

-Fred Gilham  gilham@csl.sri.com