Knowledge Mind & Language Map Language and Thought
Understanding is more than manipulating uninterpreted symbols.
John Searle presents what is called the Chinese Room argument designed to
show that there is more to understanding a language than manipulating uninterpreted
symbols. (It is often claimed that computers achieve their effects by manipulating
uninterpreted symbols.)
What objections might be made to Searle's argument? How good are they?
(Early) Chomsky's computational understanding of 'grammar'
used this dstinction too.
A distinction between syntax and semantics is often made.
In these terms it is argued that computers can't understand semantics (meaning)
Thought
Might machines be got to think?
The representational theory of thinking
According to the computer/brain analogy, what is thinking? The representational
theory of thought is one answer: what is going on when a person is thinking
is that states of bits of the brain represent propositions and these are manipulated
in various ways. This theory thus posits a close connection between language
and thought)
Language
Might machines to be got to use language as human beings do?
To respond to Searle, you have to think of the internal states of physical systems
(eg brains) acquiring meaning (involving intentionality). How can they be thought
of as doing so? Jerry Fodor offers one possible answer in "A Theory of
Belief". The Churchlands offer another in 'Stalking The Wild Epistemic
Engine'.