Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3630 comp.ai:6049 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!pt.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!qw0w+ From: qw0w+@andrew.cmu.edu (Quanfeng Wu) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince Message-ID: Date: 22 Feb 90 04:59:37 GMT References: <18883@bcsaic.UUCP> <1589@skye.ed.ac.uk> <11488@venera.UUCP> <1754@skye.ed.ac.uk> <11910@venera.isi.edu> , Organization: Psychology, Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA Lines: 17 In-Reply-To: <0cWk02pp8aza01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> From: kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) write: >This is a good example. When designing a compiler (or especially an >interpreter) the designer has many options in assigning the syntactic >and semantic processing to different modules. Frequently, the most >efficient design will mix syntactic with semantic information. In the >case of human language understanding, it seems assured that the overlap >is almost complete. Overlap in *implementation*, that is. But, when referrin to natural langugaes, what would you mean by saying *implementation*? You mean different English speakers have different implementations (or say, parsers) of the language English? or you mean English, French, Chinese and so on are different implementations of a unique human communication language (which is neither English, nor French, ....)? I think it may not be necessary to distinguish between a natural language and its implementations.