David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Logic, Language and Information 9 (4):467-490 (2000)
I advocate a theory of syntactic semantics as a way of understanding how computers can think (and how the Chinese-Room-Argument objection to the Turing Test can be overcome): (1) Semantics, considered as the study of relations between symbols and meanings, can be turned into syntax – a study of relations among symbols (including meanings) – and hence syntax (i.e., symbol manipulation) can suffice for the semantical enterprise (contra Searle). (2) Semantics, considered as the process of understanding one domain (by modeling it) in terms of another, can be viewed recursively: The base case of semantic understanding –understanding a domain in terms of itself – is syntactic understanding. (3) An internal (or narrow), first-person point of view makes an external (or wide), third-person point of view otiose for purposes of understanding cognition.
|Keywords||Chinese-Room Argument first-person point of view internalism methodological solipsism problem of other minds representative realism rules and representations semantic network semantics SNePS syntax Turing Test|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
|Through your library||Configure|
Similar books and articles
Selmer Bringsjord, P. Bello & David A. Ferrucci (2001). Creativity, the Turing Test, and the (Better) Lovelace Test. Minds and Machines 11 (1):3-27.
B. Jack Copeland (2000). The Turing Test. Minds and Machines 10 (4):519-539.
William J. Rapaport (1995). Understanding Understanding: Syntactic Semantics and Computational Cognition. Philosophical Perspectives 9:49-88.
William J. Rapaport (2002). Holism, Conceptual-Role Semantics, and Syntactic Semantics. Minds and Machines 12 (1):3-59.
Robert M. French (2000). Peeking Behind the Screen: The Unsuspected Power of the Standard Turing Test. Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Artificial Intelligence 12 (3):331-340.
Robert French (1996). The Inverted Turing Test: How a Mindless Program Could Pass It. Psycoloquy 7 (39).
William J. Rapaport (2000). How to Pass a Turing Test: Syntactic Semantics, Natural-Language Understanding, and First-Person Cognition. Journal of Logic, Language, and Information 9 (4):467-490.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads7 ( #147,241 of 1,006,301 )
Recent downloads (6 months)1 ( #64,735 of 1,006,301 )
How can I increase my downloads?