As the old analogy goes, a Martian who knew how to manipulate a chess board to produce all legal moves would still not know how to play, without understanding that one is trying to win. Focusing on symbol manipulation only ignores semantics and pragmatics, without which language is incoherent, and whittled away to an idle assembly of abstractions. — The Great Whatever

This feels like a faulty analogy as well. The manipulation of a chess board to produce legal moves would include rules about situational moves implicit with an understanding of the object of the game (e.g., what to do when in check). In this case, we are making an intuitive judgement that knowing all the legal moves is insufficient to produce an understanding of the game, but we are doing so from a state of ignorance. The scope of knowing ALL the legal moves might in fact entail an understanding of the object of the game.

The problem I see with the Chinese Room and your above example is that if you buy into the computational theory of mind you can see how each respectively fits into the theory. Alternatively, if you think there's something missing, you see how each respectively demonstrates that position as well. The analogies seem only to illustrate confirmation biases in intuition rather than insight into what is really going on. — Soylent

Fair enough. I think I've made the mistake of accepting Searle's setup. If I don't buy into the computational theory of mind, why would I expect the Chinese Room to work? Why would I expect a symbol manipulating system to pass the Turing Test (in a strong way)?

This feels like a faulty analogy as well. The manipulation of a chess board to produce legal moves would include rules about situational moves implicit with an understanding of the object of the game (e.g., what to do when in check). In this case, we are making an intuitive judgement that knowing all the legal moves is insufficient to produce an understanding of the game, but we are doing so from a state of ignorance. The scope of knowing ALL the legal moves might in fact entail an understanding of the object of the game. — Soylent

Google had their DeepMind machine learning software learn various Atari 2600 games. For some of them, it excelled. But it struggled with others. It scored a zero on Montezuma's Revenge, because the score doesn't change unless you're able to navigate across a room with obstacles and get the key. DeepMind has no understanding of objects in any of the games. It only knows pixels and the score, which it's trying to maximize. To do well in this game, you need to know that the key is something to aim for. Any human would quickly figure that out.

But admittedly, that is different than a chess playing program. Humans labored to program chess software to play the game. It didn't learn how.

So to be a horse is have to properties A, B, and C and to be a rabbit is to have properties X, Y, and Z. — Michael

What do you mean, 'so?' There is no 'so' about it: being a horse consisting in having certain properties is not causally dependent on people choosing to call creatures with those properties by the name 'horse.' Again, they were already horses.

At T2 we decide to name those things that have the properties in the first set "rabbit" and those things that have the properties in the second set "horse". So to be a horse is to have properties X, Y, and Z and to be a rabbit is to have properties A, B, and C. — Michael

No, what the fuck? You literally just said that changing what words we call animals would change whether they are rabbits and horses around. Assuming that properties of the animals themselves don't change, you just said that the ones that bore the same properties at t1 that used to be horses will now be rabbits, and vice-versa, by virtue of our swapping the names around.

Surely you see that this is insane?

At T1, Animal 1 has properties A, B, and C, and so is a horse. At T2, Animal 1 has properties A, B, and C, and so is a rabbit. — Michael

This makes no sense whatsoever. If it has the same properties, then it hasn't changed, and so it can't have changed from a horse to a rabbit. The only way to change from a horse to a rabbit is to change properties, but you've stipulated the properties haven't changed.

Consider that we used the word "gay" to refer to the light-hearted and carefree, and that now we use it to refer to homosexuals. Now imagine that such a change in language-use happened over night. Is it insane to then say that all homosexuals are gay? Are you saying that because nothing about the miserable homosexual has changed it doesn't make sense to say that he changed from non-gay to gay?

What it means to be gay, or to be a horse, depends on how we use the words "gay" and "horse". If we change the way we use the words "gay" and "horse" then what it means to be gay or a horse changes. So there's nothing insane or nonsensical about claiming that if we decide to use the word "horse" to refer to a particular type of small mammal in the family Leporidae then Thumper is a horse -- because to be a horse is to be a particular type of small mammal in the family Leporidae, and Thumper is a particular type of small mammal in the family Leporidae.

Of course it doesn't make sense. You think people became gay when a new sense of the word 'gay' was coined? No-- they were already gay. Furthermore, many people were gay thousands of years before any such word existed.

They became appropriate referents of the word 'gay' when the new word was formed, but as I said, 'gay' does not mean 'appropriate referent of the word 'gay'', which is the underlying prejudice you are holding onto. Rather, it means attracted to the same sex. They were already attracted to the same sex, and so were already gay, long before they were called 'gay,' if indeed that is what the word means.

I'm not saying that they became homosexual when we started calling them gay. I'm saying that they became members of the set "gay" when we changed the use of the word "gay" to name the set of members who are homosexual.

As I said before, what it means to be gay (or a horse) depends on how we use the word. If we change the way we use the word then we change what it means to be gay (or a horse).

Those things that weren't horses according to the old use of the word are horses according to the new use of the word, just as those people who weren't gay according to the old use of the word are gay according to the new use of the word. Saying that Thumper isn't a horse even after the change in how we use the word "horse" because he doesn't satisfy the old use is like saying that homosexuals aren't gay even after the change in how we use the word "gay" because they don't satisfy the old use.

How can someone become gay, without becoming homosexual, if to be gay is just to be homosexual? That makes no sense.

And clearly since to be be member of the set of things referred to by "gay" is just to be homosexual, and they already were, then they already were members of this set.

As I said before, what it means to be gay (or a horse) depends on how we use the word. If we change the way we use the word then we change what it means to be gay (or a horse). — Michael

It does not depend on how we use the word. To be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal, which is possible even if there are no words. Horses were in existence before language. This is impossible to square on your view, and it is insane. Nor does it change when we change the words -- as I've said, your position literally commits you to claiming we can turn people gay by calling them 'gay.'

Those things that weren't horses according to the old use of the word — Michael

There is no such thing as being a horse 'according to the use of a word.' They were horses -- period, simpliciter. And they were so long before anyone called them anything. They were not the referent of the word 'horse' -- but then, the point is that 'horse' does not mean, 'referent of 'horse'' as you seem to think -- it means, a certain kind of animal.

Saying that Thumper isn't a horse even after the change in how we use the word "horse" because he doesn't satisfy the old use is like saying that homosexuals aren't gay even after the change in how we use the word "gay" because they don't satisfy the old use. — Michael

If Thumper were a horse, he would have a long face, and a mane, and a horse cock. But he doesn't so he's not a horse. That's not going to change if we start using 'horse' to refer to rabbits. He will still be a rabbit, just a rabbit that is the appropriate referent of 'horse.' This does not change him into a horse.

On the contrary, homosexuals were already gay, even before the new use of the word. This is obvious from the fact that to be gay just is to be homosexual, and they were ex hypothesi already homosexual.

I don't know how much simpler to put this. If at T₁ "A" refers to Xs and if at T₂ "A" refers to ¬Xs then at T₂ ¬Xs are As. If at T₁ "horse" refers to equines and it at T₂ "horse" refers to rabbits then that T₂ rabbits are horses.

Your criticism conflates "horse" (and "A") as used at T₂ with "horse" (and "A") as used at T₁. I'm no more saying that rabbits are equines than I am saying that ¬Xs are Xs.

If Thumper were a horse, he would have a long face, and a mane, and a horse cock.

Only according to the current meaning of "horse". But I've changed it. You might as well say that if so-and-so was gay then he'd be carefree and happy.

I don't know how much simpler to put this. If at T1 "A" refers to Xs and if at T2 "A" refers to ¬Xs then at T2 ¬Xs are As. If at T1 "horse" refers to equines and it at T2 "horse" refers to rabbits then that T2 rabbits are horses. — Michael

But this is wrong. Horses don't stop being horses when we stop calling them 'horse.' They are still horses. This is because to be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal, and they are still that kind of animal.

Rabbits don't become horses because we change their names, which is what you are proposing. Consider how ridiculous that is.

You have a fundamental misunderstanding that even the simplest explanation can't seem to correct.

This is because to be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal...

Yes, and at T₂ to be a horse is to be a member of the rabbit family.

So it's a misunderstanding to think that if I call a rabbit a 'horse,' it doesn't become a horse? Consider that this is literally the position you are defending.

So it's a misunderstanding to think that if I call a rabbit a 'horse,' it doesn't become a horse? Consider that this is literally the position you are defending. — The Great Whatever

You're using a straw man interpretation. I'm not saying that if I call a rabbit a "horse" then it becomes the sort of animal that competes in the Grand National. I'm saying that if we, as a linguistic community, call rabbits "horses" then to be a horse is to be a member of the rabbit family.

Only according to the current meaning of "horse". But I've changed it. You might as well say that if so-and-so was gay then he'd be carefree and happy. — Michael

You haven't changed the meaning of "horse". You've exchanged the word for another. Now you call a "horse" a "rabbit", but you still mean horse.

A horse by any other name.

Yes, and at T2 to be a horse is to be a member of the rabbit family. — Michael

No, at T2 to be the referent of 'horse' is to be a rabbit. To be a horse is still -- to be a horse, not a rabbit!

No, at T2 to be the referent of 'horse' is to be a rabbit. To be a horse is still -- to be a horse, not a rabbit! — The Great Whatever

This is like saying that at T₂ to be the referent of "gay" is to be homosexual but to be gay is still to be happy and carefree, not homosexual.

You cannot make horses members of the rabbit family unless it is possible to be a rabbit and a horse simultaneously. If you change the meaning of 'horse' as a linguistic community, you have changed which animals are the appropriate referents of which words, not what horses are, or what it is to be a horse. This is your misunderstanding -- you think 'horse' means something like, 'referent of 'horse''. But this is not what it means, as shown by the fact that horses don't need to be, and usually aren't, the referent of 'horse' at all. Rather, 'horse' means a certain kind of animal.

You haven't changed the meaning of "horse". You've changed exchanged the word for another. Now you call a "horse" a "rabbit", but you still mean horse. — Marchesk

Yes, and "horse" means "rabbit". Just as now I call a homosexual "gay", and I still mean gay -- because "gay" means "homosexual".

No, I've already explained this. If you coin a new word 'gay' that means 'homosexual,' it follows that homosexual people were already gay before the coinage of the term. This follows form the fact that to be gay is to be homosexual, and they were already homosexual.

If you coin a new word 'gay' that means 'homosexual,' it follows that homosexual people were already gay — The Great Whatever

And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits are, and were already, horses.

If you change the meaning of 'horse' as a linguistic community, you have changed which animals are the appropriate referents of which words, not what horses are, or what it is to be a horse.

This is like saying that if you change the meaning of 'gay' as a linguistic community you have changed which people are the appropriate referents of this word, not what gays are, or what it is to be gay.

Just as now I call a homosexual "gay", and I still mean gay -- because "gay" means "homosexual". — Michael

You don't still mean happy, you mean homosexual now. So you don't still mean "gay".

And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits were already horses. — Michael

And if we say that rabbits were gay, we mean that horses are homosexual, right?

But I do mean gay, because "gay" now means "homosexual", and I mean "homosexual".

That depends on if we're using the word "gay" to refer to rabbits or if we're predicating homosexuality of horses. It's not clear what you're trying to say.

But I do mean gay, because "gay" now means "homosexual", and I mean "homosexual". — Michael

So let's invent a new word called horsexual, and let's say that gay now means "horsexual". Now what?

And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits are, and were already, horses. — Michael

No, it does not. Rabbits were never horses. That's absurd.

This is like saying that if you change the meaning of 'gay' as a linguistic community you have changed which people are the appropriate referents of this word, not what gays are, or what it is to be gay. — Michael

But thats true! You haven't changed what it is to be gay, ie. homosexual, by inventing a word! Are you crazy?

I think it needs to be stated the other way round; "horsexual" means "gay". So what's the problem?

That depends on if we're using the word "gay" to refer to rabbits or if we're predicating homosexuality of horses. It's not clear what you're trying to sau. — Michael

I was aiming for humor there, because the conversation was starting to make me to laugh.

I think it needs to be stated the other way round; "horsexual" means "gay". So what's the problem? — Michael

Gay already means something, so I picked a meaningless word to transition to. Then you can see that meaning doesn't change when the word changes.