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