Xref: utzoo comp.ai:4783 sci.lang:5247 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!violet.berkeley.edu!sp299-ad From: sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu (Celso Alvarez) Newsgroups: comp.ai,sci.lang Subject: Re: What's the Chinese room problem? Message-ID: <1989Sep26.072800.22487@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 26 Sep 89 07:28:00 GMT References: <235@cerc.wvu.wvnet.edu.edu> <567@ariel.unm.edu> <15157@bcsaic.UUCP> Sender: usenet@agate.berkeley.edu (USENET Administrator;;;;ZU44) Organization: University of California, Berkeley Lines: 19 In article <15157@bcsaic.UUCP> rwojcik@bcsaic.UUCP (Rick Wojcik) writes: >. . . The trick to translation is to construct expressions in the >target language that evoke the same thoughts as those in the source language. Much more than thoughts are evoked by language. How do you translate the signalling of identity, roles, and social relationships? >And this may even be impossible without modification of the target language >(i.e. the creation of new words to fit new experiences). So I claim that the >Chinese room problem rests on incorrect assumptions about the nature of >language and understanding. I'm not familiar with the Chinese room problem, but where do you/Searle leave the question of interpretation? There is more to language than understanding. Celso Alvarez sp299-ad@violet.berkeley.edu