🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <16577@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> mike@cs.arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) writes:
>Second, it seems to me that Searle has set a tough task for
>himself---to "prove" logically his contention.  That is tough because
>he is trying to prove something about "thought", a term that he never
>defines.  Without a definition he will never produce a very convincing
>proof.  The other side is in much better shape because they only have

My reaction to reading the Searle article was exactly identical to
reading his earlier paper, Minds, brains, and programs, _Behavioral and
Brain Sciences_, 1980. He's just arguing semantics. His whole point is
about definitions, and as pointed out above, he never provides any. The
word I thought everything hinged on was 'understand.' He doesn't even
argue whether or not a system could be created which answers every
question correctly like the chinese room; he just concedes it and then
yells that it would't 'understand.'

My opinion: If it answers every question correctly, I don't care what
you call it. If you don't want to call it 'understanding,' fine. I think
it's pretty significant.

The second article I thought was much more interesting and pertinent. It
dealt with the altogether more important (in my opinion) question--can
we get the system to produce all the right answers, and how. It was also
the first actual explanation I have seen of parallel (or simplistic
neural-net) approaches. After hearing so much from that area, but not
bothering to look into it, a simple explanation was very welcomed.

-Karl		kpfleger@phoenix.princeton.edu
		kpfleger@pucc (bitnet)