Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pacbell!rtech!wrs!hwajin From: hwajin@wrs.wrs.com (Hwa Jin Bae) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: more Chinese Room Keywords: Searle, Chinese Room, Descartes, Cartesian Message-ID: <859@wrs.wrs.com> Date: 25 Feb 90 08:31:44 GMT References: <1990Feb13.225830.13432@wam.umd.edu> <53tT02R288oV01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <1990Feb16.182519.18166@wam.umd.edu> <1990Feb16.220511.27647@Neon.Stanford.EDU> <857@wrs.wrs.com> <0czk02el8b1301@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> Reply-To: hwajin@wrs.wrs.com () Distribution: usa Organization: Wind River Systems, Emeryville, CA Lines: 166 In article <0czk02el8b1301@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> kp@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes: >In article <857@wrs.wrs.com> hwajin@wrs.wrs.com () writes: >>The idea that one can definitely identify a corresponding >>physical parts of anything that is non-physical seems to >>be also based on the same old Cartesian model of world view; >>everything has to be clearly categorized, labeled and analysed >>to the littlest components. There is always a clear distinction >>between things material and things spiritual. > >Let's lay off Descartes, OK? It was Aristotle who invented Categories, >and Kant who is responsible for the (small) role they still have in >current philosophy. Descartes was *opposed* to this view. You seem to be missing the point of my reference to the categorization. It seems a certain hangup with the word "categorization" has triggered a some kind of automatic association with this type of response. The context in which this word is used clearly indicates that the usage was intended to emphasize the analytic methodology typically employed by Descartes and his followers. His methodolgy consisted in breaking up thoughts and problems into pieces and in arranging these in their logical order. This methology is largely considered to be one of his greatest contributions to modern science. Why don't you try reading the original sentence quoted here again. I never said he invented categorization (as if it is possible to invent such a thing as you are so quick to credit Aristotle). This type of "lay off" reaction based on a rather misguided interpretation is not the style of discussion in which you hope to engage, I hope. Nevertheless, Descartes certainly was *not* *opposed* to this view of categorizing things. His particular emphasis on the fundamental division between two independent and separate realms; that of mind, or res cogitans, or that of matter, res extensa. Where do you get this idea that he was *opposed* to it? Within each of these domains he did maintain a certain consistency is his efforts to unify things but the basis of his philosophy was dualistic. This is rather basic history, don't you agree? >Descartes' method involved pure deductions (read "calculations") from >assertions such as "I'm Thinking", and had very little to do with objects >of any sort (though he did draw the famous distinction, which I will not >repeat, because I don't like it either). Thus, famous saying, "Cognito, ergo sum." His methodology was certain based on mathematical reasoning but one must not hasten to claim that it had very little to do with objects of any sort. That's quite a claim. To Descartes the material universe was a machine and nothing but a machine. Nevertheless he did extend his mechanistic view of matter to living organisms and explained at grat length how the motions and various biological functions of the body could be reduced to mechanical operations, in order to show that living organisms were nothing but automata. His thinking was very much involved with the "objects" (let's not get into what "object" means since that will start another long discussion) in this way. His view became the conceptual framework for the senteenth-centry science and influenced the Newtonian universe. >Note that Searle accuses the Strong AI'ers of Cartesianism. He is *right* >that those who suppose pure calculation can constitute a mind have a >position resembling Descartes. He is *wrong* to suppose that anyone >holds such a position. Searle accuses the Strong AI'ers (I hate this term) of accusing others of Cartesianism while not willing to admit his own Cartesianism. :-) True? I'm pretty sure you'd agree. >For the purposes of the debate over the potential of AI, >Descartes' most important contribution is the invention of analytic >geometry. "That's completely irrelevant" you say? Quite right. > Huh? The signal to noise ratio is extermely low around here. >>As I've mentioned several weeks back and some others more >>recently, Searle's entire argument is based on the premise that >>there are in fact two distinct components -- syntax and semantics >>which are naturally separate and cannot be reconciled. This >>assumption is taken without any investigation. I dare you to >>find any attempt by Searle, in many of his redundant articles >>on this tiresome Chinese Room nonsense, to re-evaluate this >>basic condition of his argument -- > >Scientfic American, Jan. 1990, page 31, leftmost column. > Fortunately, one of the guys around here at work put that dreadful copy of SA in our rest room, so I took a look at it again to refresh my memory. I assume you're referring to his remark that "The argument rests on the distinction between the formal symbol manipulation that is done by the computer and the mental contents biologically produced by the brain, a distinction I have abbreviated -- I hope not misleadingly -- as the distinction between syntax and semantics." Evidently he realizes that he made an important mistake in his original statement on the Chinese Room arguement and here he is trying to amend the damage by backing out and claiming that he has "abbreviated" the rather manipulative distinctions. How convenient! A pathetic attempt at saving his face. I remember now why I felt sick as I read his article for the first time. > is it truely appropriate >>for us to insist on this division between syntax and semantics >>in our search for the understanding of the mind? Everything >>is connected at a certain level. One cannot safely >>assume any division of any abstractions. Quantum physists >>certainly feel better at ease with this lack of >>fine lines -- as in, "it seems to be both wave and particle at >>the same time." >> >>The mind seems to be both syntax and semantics at the same time. > >Searle is not saying that syntactic information is ever encoded separately >from semantic information in any natural or artificial language >understanding system. He is *only* saying: > > IF you write a program that looks at input strings and nothing else, > > THEN that program will not contain enough information to figure out > what the strings mean. > >Your objections actually *strengthen* Searle's position. He believes, >as you do, that semantic and syntactic information are completely mixed >in human brains. What he does not believe is that computers ever do >anything other than look at strings. He concludes from this that >computer programs can never contain any semantic information. > What do you think my objections are? My objection is that Searle has never attempted an honest re-evaluation of his pseudo analyses of the current status of AI and the potential of AI. His intentions are to abolish unless research projects "that waste valuable grant money". That is totally shortsighted point of view. Aside from that, some of the trivial points that are not hardly worth arguing about but still too errorsome to overlook tend to catch one's attention and demand some kind of comment. He says one thing to avoid having to explain his errors but still continue to use the old set of axioms to illustrate his CR. Syntax does not equal semantics, therefore all the computer based research of mind is useless. That's what he wants you to think no matter how he phrases it. > [usless harangue about compiler example pointed out by others > repeated here but deleted for brevity.] > >So Searle is wrong that programs cannot contain semantic information, but >he is right that if the occupant of the Chinese Room can only look at the >program and not at what's goig on outside, he may never figure out the >language he's "speaking". So what? What's the point of this arguement? In any case this type of thinking is also part of what Cartesian thinking is all about. The notion that all can be explained by mathematical analysis and logical deduction of observed phenomena. The mathematical certainty accepted thusly is the basis of all knowledge from this point of view. As we know now this is a profoundly incorrect concept as evidenced by recent advances in physics and Godel's Incompleteness theorem. As a side note, the Chinese character illustrated in the SA article means horse but the writing is distored by the artist in a rather amusing sort of ways. The people who ran the article evidently did not understand Chinese either. -- Hwa Jin Bae (hwajin@wrs.com) Wind River Systems