LECTURE EIGHT SOME FURTHER REFLECTION UPON CHINESE ROOM ARGUMENT 对于汉字屋论证的一些 反思
LECTURE EIGHT SOME FURTHER REFLECTION UPON CHINESE ROOM ARGUMENT 对于汉字屋论证的一些 反思
SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS(语形学和语义学之分) Searle believes the Chinese Room argument supports a larger point, which explains the failure of the Chinese Room to produce understanding. Searle argued that programs implemented by y computers are Just syntactical. Computer operations are"formal in that they respond only to the explicit form of the strings of symbols, not to the meaning of the symbols. Minds on the other hand have states with meaning, mental contents. We associate meanings with the words or signs in language. We respond to signs because of their meaning, not just their physical appearance. In short, we understand. But, and according to Searle this is the key point,"Syntax is not by itself sufficient for, nor constitutive of, semantics. So although computers may be able to manipulate syntax to produce appropriate responses to natural language input, they do not understand the sentences they receive or output, for they cannot associate meanings with the words
SYNTAX AND SEMANTICS（语形学和语义学之分） Searle believes the Chinese Room argument supports a larger point, which explains the failure of the Chinese Room to produce understanding. Searle argued that programs implemented by computers are just syntactical. Computer operations are “formal” in that they respond only to the explicit form of the strings of symbols, not to the meaning of the symbols. Minds on the other hand have states with meaning, mental contents. We associate meanings with the words or signs in language. We respond to signs because of their meaning, not just their physical appearance. In short, we understand. But, and according to Searle this is the key point, “Syntax is not by itself sufficient for, nor constitutive of, semantics.” So although computers may be able to manipulate syntax to produce appropriate responses to natural language input, they do not understand the sentences they receive or output, for they cannot associate meanings with the words
WHAT IS SYNTAX? WHAT IS SEMANTICS? o In linguistics, syntax(from Ancient Greek ouvtasis"arrangement!" from ouv syn together", and tasis taxis, "an ordering")is"the study of the principles and processes by which sentences are constructed in particularlanguages o Semantics(from Greek: semantika, neuter plural of semantikos) 2 is the study of meaning It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such aswords, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their dentata
WHAT IS SYNTAX? WHAT IS SEMANTICS? In linguistics, syntax (from Ancient Greek σύνταξις "arrangement" from σύν syn, "together", and τάξις táxis, "an ordering") is "the study of the principles and processes by which sentences are constructed in particularlanguages.“ Semantics (from Greek: sēmantiká, neuter plural of sēmantikós) [1][2] is the study of meaning. It focuses on the relation between signifiers, such aswords, phrases, signs and symbols, and what they stand for, their denotata
A THREE PREMISE ARGUMENT BY SEARLE o 1. Programs are purely formal(syntactic) o 2. Human minds have mental contents (semantics) o 3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor sufficient for semantic content o 4. Therefore, programs by themselves are not constitutive of nor sufficient for minds
A THREE PREMISE ARGUMENT BY SEARLE 1. Programs are purely formal (syntactic). 2. Human minds have mental contents (semantics). 3. Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of, nor sufficient for, semantic content. 4. Therefore, programs by themselves are not constitutive of nor sufficient for minds
THE ROLE THAT CRA PLAYS o The Chinese room thought experiment itself is the support for the third premise The claim that syntactic manipulation is not sufficient for meaning or thought is a significant issue, with wider implications than Al, or attributions of understanding. Prominent theories of mind hold that human cognition generally is computational In one form, it is held that thought involves operations on symbols in virtue of their physical properties On an alternative connectionist account, the computations are on "subsymbolic states. If Searle is right, not only Strong al but also these main approaches to understanding human cognition are misguided
THE ROLE THAT CRA PLAYS The Chinese Room thought experiment itself is the support for the third premise. The claim that syntactic manipulation is not sufficient for meaning or thought is a significant issue, with wider implications than AI, or attributions of understanding. Prominent theories of mind hold that human cognition generally is computational. In one form, it is held that thought involves operations on symbols in virtue of their physical properties. On an alternative connectionist account, the computations are on “subsymbolic” states. If Searle is right, not only Strong AI but also these main approaches to understanding human cognition are misguided