🚀 go-pugleaf

In response to harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad)

I think you (and Searle) need to define EXACTLY what you mean by symbol
manipulation. The functional equivalence (other than speed and
efficiency) of parallel and single-processor architectures seems to my
limited knowledge to truly exist. However, I consider the functionality
of parallel systems to be very different from symbol manipulation.
Furthermore, it seems to me that even single-processor systems can do
more than just symbol manipulation.

If you define symbol manipulation to be exactly what single-processor
systems can do, then you have trivially shown that if symbol
manipulation itself cannot due it, then single-processor systems cannot.
But the chinese room argument which accomplishes this seems to use
symbol manipulation in a way which makes it much more specific than all
things that can be done with a single-processor system.

Which brings us to the point I made a few posts back, I think to
this group. The point is that most of the Searle article rests on
definitions. Here the one in question is symbol manipulation. The more
critical one, I think, is understanding. Also, intelligence is a key
one. The whole conclusion of the argument is that the system can't
'understand' or won't be 'intelligent.' But these things are never
defined.

In fact, Searle seems to have his definitions already in his head and
they seem to be defined precisely so that his argument is true, which
makes the argument trivial. You seem to have decided the fate already
too:

In article <12679@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> harnad@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (Stevan Harnad) writes:
>I don't know about you, but I've never been at all happy with
>naive hackers' claims that all there is to mind is the usual stuff, but
>(1) faster, (2) bigger, and (3) more "complex." I think the real
>punchline's going to turn out to be a good bit more substantive than
>this hand-waving about just (a lot) more of the same...

The reason everyone disagrees about the Searle article(s)/ideas is that
he doesn't provide any definitions and so people must supply their own.
Those that hold to the "naive hackers' claims" have definitions in their
heads which cause them to disagree with Searle. Those who share your
views have definitions in their heads which cause them to agree with
Searle. Thus, I don't think Searle's arguments actually changed anyone's
mind about anything.

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