Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxd.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!bellcore!petrus!scherzo!allegra!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxd!rlr From: rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Re: Searle's Pearls Message-ID: <2029@pyuxd.UUCP> Date: Mon, 4-Nov-85 00:53:01 EST Article-I.D.: pyuxd.2029 Posted: Mon Nov 4 00:53:01 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 07:08:29 EST References: <2412@sjuvax.UUCP> <1779@watdcsu.UUCP> <2461@sjuvax.UUCP> <1810@watdcsu.UUCP> <635@spar.UUCP> Organization: Whatever we're calling ourselves this week Lines: 18 > Indeed, following Wittgenstein, one can argue that the man in question > most evidently *did* understand at least the sentence "we have to leave > the building", even though he might not be able to identify the individual > words within the sentence. Of course, a real human could eventually learn > to isolate and recombine the individual words once he had seen them in > a variety of contexts and associated with appropriately related > "sensory observations and movements". > > Having studied Wittgenstein under Searle years ago, I think that Searle > would maintain that it is precisely the isolation of language behavior > from other behavior in the Chinese room that implies a lack of > understanding. > Baba Could one ever "learn" language in a vacuum, without context based on experiencing and sensing the things that words represent? -- "Mrs. Peel, we're needed..." Rich Rosen ihnp4!pyuxd!rlr