[Wittrs] Re: I Experience in Ordinary Language

  • From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 02:42:16 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:

> But Searle shows a possible case where there is the relevant
> behavior without the semantics given that programs are spelled
> out entirely in second-order property terms and as such involve
> a notion of "electrical arrangement" where the electricity is
> funnelled through logic gates such that a program is a purely
> formal affair/arrangement.

Actually, no, he does not show that at all.  He merely shows a  possible
case where Searle does not understand how there could  be semantics.

> The systems reply changes the subject ...

Actually, no, the Systems Reply does not change the subject at all.

Searle is using his Chinese Room as part of an argument by analogy.  In
that Chinese Room, Searle is carrying out the actions of the CPU  (the
central processor).  The various baskets, in which symbols  are placed,
are acting the part of memory.

Searle does present a persuasive argument that the CPU itself would  not
have semantics.  It falls short of a proof, but I'll grant that  it is a
persuasive argument.

Here is what you are missing.  Nobody in AI, nobody in computer
science, no mathematician - none of them ever assumed that the
semantics would be in the CPU.  It was always assumed that it  would be
in the system as a whole, rather than in the CPU.

So Searle presented an elaborate argument in order to make a  persuasive
argument about what was already seen as trivially obvious.


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: