From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Sep 10 22:00:01 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8B201Hs004179 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 22:00:01 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front2.acsu.buffalo.edu (upfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.4.140]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l8B1xrdw079760 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:59:53 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 25970 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 01:59:53 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 01:59:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 21809 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 01:59:53 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 01:59:53 -0000 Received: (qmail 29349 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 01:59:50 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 01:59:50 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2188373 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:59:50 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 9743 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 01:59:49 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 01:59:49 -0000 Received: (qmail 25069 invoked by uid 60001); 11 Sep 2007 01:59:49 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 128.205.63.79 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <1189475989.46e5f69570c3c@mail4.buffalo.edu> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 21:59:49 -0400 Reply-To: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" Subject: Chinese Room Argument and The Chess Game Not To Win To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4233/Mon Sep 10 19:24:46 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO X-Status: A X-Keywords: NotJunk $NotJunk X-UID: 15934 Content-Length: 1199 Computer merely do follow syntax but not understand semantics. It is all about the famous 'Chinese Room Argument", which was suggested by contemporary philosopher, John Searle. This is still controversial topic among many academics. Indeed, I am positively impressed Seare's insight. Let's think about the computer performing chess game. It is strong, smart and intelligent to beat the human chess player. By the way, hereby interesting though can arise. Let's think the possibilities that we can adjust this computer to medium intelligent, less intelligent and the least intelligent chess-computer respectively by some proper arrangement of the program. Ala! what is this chess- computer for?? Even some modification of the program make the chess- computer for planned loss! What is the semantics of the chess game? This is to win the game. Without this notion of semantics, the chess game between human being is fundamentally impossible or it is not 'the game' itself. The chess-computer win but not to win. It plays the syntax but not the game. Youngjin 'Sung' Kang Cultural Anthropology yjkang@buffalo.edu 716-310-9692 From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Mon Sep 10 23:35:23 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8B3ZNnU006652 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:35:23 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l8B3ZAea086160 for ; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:35:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 22477 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 03:35:09 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 03:35:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 2902 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 03:35:09 -0000 Received: from defer.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.58) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 03:35:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 29646 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 03:35:08 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by defer.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 03:35:08 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2190751 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:35:08 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 26036 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 03:32:13 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 03:32:13 -0000 Received: (qmail 26741 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 03:32:13 -0000 Received: from cpe-74-78-56-99.buffalo.res.rr.com (HELO Justin) (74.78.56.99) by smtp1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 03:32:13 -0000 References: <1189475989.46e5f69570c3c@mail4.buffalo.edu> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1"; reply-type=original Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.3138 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.3138 X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 000774-1, 09/10/2007), Outbound message X-Antivirus-Status: Clean X-UB-Relay: (cpe-74-78-56-99.buffalo.res.rr.com) X-PM-Spam-Prob: XX: 22% Message-ID: <001501c7f424$579ebf90$63384e4a@Justin> Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 23:32:11 -0400 Reply-To: Justin J Couchman Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: Justin J Couchman Subject: Re: Chinese Room Argument and The Chess Game Not To Win To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (cpe-74-78-56-99.buffalo.res.rr.com) X-PM-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1029; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4237/Mon Sep 10 22:44:16 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: NotJunk $NotJunk X-UID: 15936 Content-Length: 3519 While I agree with Sung's argument that the chess-computer does not understand semantics, I don't think that this means that a computer could not come to master semantics. Searle's argument, in a nutshell, is that a computer could appear conscious, but would never really be conscious because all it is doing is manipulating symbols (syntax). It doesn't understand what these symbols mean (semantics). So, on this account, the chess-computer does not really understand what it is doing, it is just manipulating symbols in a complex way. However, imagine that this chess-computer has input devices that can record stimuli from the outside world (vision, sound, etc). It can store these representations in memory, and pair the images of the outside world with symbols that represent them (so it could recognize that 'rook' means that little castle-looking piece, and through exposure to many rooks it could come to label every instance of a rook with the symbol 'rook'). Rapaport (2000) talks about this in detail. Anyway, now the chess-computer has semantics, because it is pairing the symbols with their meaning (which is semantics). This doesn't give it the motivation to win - but now that it can pair stimuli with meanings, it can come to understand that 'win' means to beat the other player, and if it is programmed to 'win' (or to strive for whatever reward winning gives), it will do its best based on it's understanding of the concept. Now it is playing to win, not just playing the (syntactic) game. Granted, you can always change the programming to make it less good at winning, or even program it to not want to win as much. But, just as easily, I can inject a person with Thorazine to make the person less effective at winning, or take out a part of the brain that makes a person inclined to win (like Phineas Gage). justin ------------------------------------- Justin J. Couchman Department of Psychology 384 Park Hall University at Buffalo jjc38@buffalo.edu ------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" To: Sent: Monday, September 10, 2007 9:59 PM Subject: Chinese Room Argument and The Chess Game Not To Win > > > Computer merely do follow syntax but not understand semantics. It is > all about the famous 'Chinese Room Argument", which was suggested by > contemporary philosopher, John Searle. This is still controversial > topic among many academics. Indeed, I am positively impressed Seare's > insight. > > Let's think about the computer performing chess game. It is strong, > smart and intelligent to beat the human chess player. By the way, > hereby interesting though can arise. Let's think the possibilities > that we can adjust this computer to medium intelligent, less > intelligent and the least intelligent chess-computer respectively by > some proper arrangement of the program. Ala! what is this chess- > computer for?? Even some modification of the program make the chess- > computer for planned loss! > > What is the semantics of the chess game? This is to win the game. > Without this notion of semantics, the chess game between human being > is fundamentally impossible or it is not 'the game' itself. > > The chess-computer win but not to win. It plays the syntax but not the > game. > > Youngjin 'Sung' Kang > Cultural Anthropology > yjkang@buffalo.edu > 716-310-9692 > > From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Tue Sep 11 08:58:48 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8BCwlnv021208 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:58:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l8BCwe6o025721 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:58:40 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 1892 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 12:58:40 -0000 Received: from mailscan3.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.135) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 12:58:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 10699 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 12:58:40 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 12:58:40 -0000 Received: (qmail 27500 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 12:58:37 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 12:58:37 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2200315 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:58:37 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 12391 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 12:58:34 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 12:58:34 -0000 Received: (qmail 28058 invoked from network); 11 Sep 2007 12:58:33 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 11 Sep 2007 12:58:33 -0000 Received: from [128.205.34.3] (adara.cse.Buffalo.EDU [128.205.34.3]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8BCwXle021183 for ; Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:58:33 -0400 (EDT) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v752.2) References: <1189475989.46e5f69570c3c@mail4.buffalo.edu> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.752.2) X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <95345492-0A3A-4E71-8538-993245E58796@cse.buffalo.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:59:03 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: Chinese Room Argument and The Chess Game Not To Win To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU In-Reply-To: <1189475989.46e5f69570c3c@mail4.buffalo.edu> Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4238/Mon Sep 10 23:38:51 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: RO X-Status: X-Keywords: NotJunk $NotJunk X-UID: 15940 Content-Length: 2383 On Sep 10, 2007, at 9:59 PM, Youngjin 'Sung' Kang wrote: > ...Computer merely do follow syntax but not understand semantics. That statement needs some support. It depends in part on what you mean by "syntax" and by "semantics". We've talked about this very briefly in class, and will return to it later when we discuss the Chinese Room Argument at the end of the course. > Indeed, I am positively impressed Seare's > insight. Many people are; you will learn my views at the end of the course :-) > > > What is the semantics of the chess game? This is to win the game. It's not at all clear, under *any* definition of "semantics", that a game has a semantics. Certainly, the *purpose* of playing chess is to win, one might say (but "purpose" and "semantics" are very different things). > Without this notion of semantics, the chess game between human being > is fundamentally impossible or it is not 'the game' itself. I don't understand this. > > The chess-computer win but not to win. I don't understand this, either; do you mean that a poorly-programmed chess computer (or one purposely programmed as you suggest) *plays* in order *not* to win? That seems perfectly fine. Why is that a problem? > It plays the syntax but not the > game. I don't know what you mean by "plays the syntax". NOTE: MY MAILER OCCASIONALLY SENDS 2 COPIES OF EACH MESSAGE, SEVERAL DAYS APART; I APOLOGIZE IN ADVANCE! ------------------------------------------------------------------------ William J. Rapaport Associate Professor of Computer Science Affiliated Faculty, Philosophy & Linguistics Member, Center for Cognitive Science Associate Director, SNePS Research Group (SNeRG) 201 Bell Hall (office: 214 Bell) | 716-645-3180 x 112 Dept. of Computer Science & Engineering | fax: 716-645-3464 University at Buffalo (SUNY) | rapaport@cse.buffalo.edu Buffalo, NY 14260-2000 | www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Comp. Sci. & Eng'g: www.cse.buffalo.edu/ Cognitive Science: www.cogsci.buffalo.edu/ SNePS Research Group: www.cse.buffalo.edu/sneps/ vocabulary research: www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/CVA/ Buffalo Restaurant Guide: www.cse.buffalo.edu/restaurant.guide/ Good Things about Buffalo: www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/buffalo.html From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Thu Sep 27 12:58:20 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8RGwKJw007891 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:58:20 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front1.acsu.buffalo.edu (coldfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.89]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l8RGwAxO024068 for ; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:58:10 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 14738 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 16:58:05 -0000 Received: from mailscan7.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.158) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 27 Sep 2007 16:58:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 15560 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 16:58:04 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front2.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 27 Sep 2007 16:58:05 -0000 Received: (qmail 17018 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 16:58:01 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 27 Sep 2007 16:58:01 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2749693 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:58:01 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 3875 invoked from network); 27 Sep 2007 16:58:01 -0000 Received: from mailscan4.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.6.136) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 27 Sep 2007 16:58:01 -0000 Received: (qmail 1327 invoked by uid 60001); 27 Sep 2007 16:58:00 -0000 X-Mailer: University at Buffalo WebMail Cyrusoft SilkyMail v1.1.11 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Originating-IP: 128.205.56.9 X-UB-Relay: (internal) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: XXX: 33% Message-ID: <1190912280.46fbe11894c7d@mail4.buffalo.edu> Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:58:00 -0400 Reply-To: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" Subject: The Calculator Room Argument To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: XXX: 33% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1336; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4411/Wed Sep 26 17:43:35 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2738 Here is my version of 'The Chinese Room Argument', which is called 'The Calculator Room Argument". One people who don't know any mathematic theory enter the room and only instructed how to use calculator. Such as pressing buttons of calculator and get the answer on the screen of it and so on. He is handed in the basic arithmetic problem such as "16-5=?' or "23+43=?' by the people outside. He press button and get the answer on the screen of the calculator. He hand out those answer to the people outside. Here are basic argument exactly like Searle's', "Do people outside can tell the difference between the person inside with calculator and without calculator?", "Accordingly, Can the person with calculator pass Turing Test in this case??" and "If so, can we say there is no difference from the cognitive process WITHOUT calculator". Here are further arguments, which seems to be more important and has not been argued with those "Room Arguments" * We usually perform many cognitive task just like calculator itself. For example, we just go through the calculation like '9 x 7' instantly to the answer '=63', merely following the rule without any thinking of "one box can contain 9 apples inside, and there are 7 boxes with 9 apple inside, so how many apples can you find with these 9 boxes?" * More important argument is "It is pretty certain that men and computers share similar traits for their problem solving (as Newell and Simon had argued in their paper on 1958, so refer to the paper on specific information of these traits shared by computer and human problem solving), IF SO, WHY CAN'T SOME INTELLIGENCE OTHER THAN HUMAN, SUCH AS CHIMPANZEE, SOLVE THE PROBLEM EVEN LIKE ELEMENTARY ARITHMETIC EVEN IF THEY SOMETIMES PERFORM SPECTACULAR ABILITY IN OTHER DOMAINS (for example climbing trees never falling off)? and WHAT SORT OF DEEPER AND MORE FUNDAMENTAL COGNITIVE ABILITY MAKE HUMAN AND COMPUTER BOTH DIFFERENT FROM CHIMPANZEES? For this question, we can't say that these are the program and rule that make difference (as Newell and Soman already had mentioned). The point is "how can these rule and program be implemented only on human and computer not on Chimps?". There seems to be two cognitive domains, the one shared only by living creatures and the other shared only by haman and computers. Youngjin 'Sung' Kang Cultural Anthropology yjkang@buffalo.edu 716-310-9692 Academic Interrest : Psycholocial, mental cognitive aspect of culture, symbol, perception, representation. visual image, films, memories, reflection, projection. comparartive analysis of cultures. Buddhism culture. life cycle, various concepts of life and death etc.. From owner-cse575-fa07-list@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Fri Sep 28 11:38:37 2007 Received: from ares.cse.buffalo.edu (ares.cse.buffalo.edu [128.205.32.79]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8SFca0Q021144 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:38:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from front3.acsu.buffalo.edu (warmfront.acsu.buffalo.edu [128.205.6.88]) by ares.cse.buffalo.edu (8.13.8/8.13.6) with SMTP id l8SFcQtW072507 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:38:26 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 15159 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2007 15:38:21 -0000 Received: from mailscan8.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.55) by front3.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Sep 2007 15:38:21 -0000 Received: (qmail 4302 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2007 15:38:19 -0000 Received: from deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.57) by front1.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Sep 2007 15:38:19 -0000 Received: (qmail 10521 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2007 15:38:09 -0000 Received: from listserv.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.35) by deliverance.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Sep 2007 15:38:09 -0000 Received: by LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU (LISTSERV-TCP/IP release 14.5) with spool id 2788935 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:38:09 -0400 Delivered-To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Received: (qmail 4254 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2007 15:38:09 -0000 Received: from mailscan6.acsu.buffalo.edu (128.205.7.95) by listserv.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Sep 2007 15:38:09 -0000 Received: (qmail 29526 invoked from network); 28 Sep 2007 15:38:07 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.buffalo.edu (128.205.32.14) by smtp4.acsu.buffalo.edu with SMTP; 28 Sep 2007 15:38:07 -0000 Received: from castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (rapaport@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.10) with ESMTP id l8SFc6un021116 for ; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:38:07 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from rapaport@localhost) by castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU (8.13.6/8.12.9/Submit) id l8SFc6OB021112 for CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU; Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:38:06 -0400 (EDT) X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% Message-ID: <200709281538.l8SFc6OB021112@castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU> Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 11:38:06 -0400 Reply-To: "William J. Rapaport" Sender: Introduction to Cognitive Science From: "William J. Rapaport" Subject: Re: The Calculator Room Argument To: CSE575-FA07-LIST@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU Precedence: list List-Help: , List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Owner: List-Archive: X-UB-Relay: (castor.cse.buffalo.edu) X-PM-EL-Spam-Prob: : 7% X-DCC-Buffalo.EDU-Metrics: castor.cse.Buffalo.EDU 1335; Body=0 Fuz1=0 Fuz2=0 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00 autolearn=ham version=3.1.8 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.8 (2007-02-13) on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.90.2/4419/Fri Sep 28 03:36:28 2007 on ares.cse.buffalo.edu X-Virus-Status: Clean Status: R Content-Length: 2899 | Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 12:58:00 -0400 | From: "Youngjin 'Sung' Kang" | Subject: The Calculator Room Argument | | We're going to discuss the Chinese Room Argument at the end of the course, so rather than jump the gun and discuss it now, I'll hold off till later. However, you might find the following papers relevant to the "calculator" version of the argument: Rapaport, William J. (1990), "Computer Processes and Virtual Persons: Comments on Cole's `Artificial Intelligence and Personal Identity"', Technical Report 90-13 (Buffalo: SUNY Buffalo Department of Computer Science). http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/cole.tr.17my90.pdf Abstract: This is a draft of the written version of comments on a paper by David Cole, presented orally at the American Philosophical Association Central Division meeting in New Orleans, 27 April 1990. Following the written comments are 2 appendices: One contains a letter to Cole updating these comments. The other is the handout from the oral presentation. In general, I am sympathetic to Cole's arguments; my comments seek to clarify and extend the issues. Specifically, I argue that, in Searle's celebrated Chinese-Room Argument, Searle-in-the-room does understand Chinese, in spite of his claims to the contrary. He does this in the sense that he is executing a computer "process" that can be said to understand Chinese. (The argument that the process in fact does understand Chinese is made elsewhere; here, I merely assume that if anything understands Chinese, it is a "process" executed by Searle-in-the-room.) I also show, by drawing an analogy between the way that I add numbers in my head and the way that a calculator adds numbers, that Searle-in-the-room's claim that he does not understand Chinese does not contradict the fact that, by executing the Chinese-natural-language-understanding algorithm, he does understand Chinese. Rapaport, William J. (1993b), "Because Mere Calculating Isn't Thinking: Comments on Hauser's `Why Isn't My Pocket Calculator a Thinking Thing?'", Minds and Machines 3: 11-20. http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~rapaport/Papers/joint.pdf http://members.aol.com/lshauser/wimpcatt.html Abstract: I suggest that on a strong view of thinking, mere calculating is not thinking (and pocket calculators don't think), but on a weak, but unexciting, sense of thinking, pocket calculators do think. I close with some observations on the implications of this conclusion. Finally, you might enjoy the following science-fiction story about a human who rediscovers how to do arithmetic after all arithemetical problems are handled by computers: Asimov, Isaac (1957), "The Feeling of Power", reprinted in Clifton Fadiman (ed.), _The Mathematical Magpie_ (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1962): 3-14. http://www.themathlab.com/writings/short%20stories/feeling.htm