markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (11/25/90)
I offer you a sinple empirical test that will verify or refute the assertion Searle makes with this thought experiment. This is, however, a minor twist on the original idea, since it is YOU who will be the learning agent. The concept is real simple. Try to learn a new language by imitation. So here's what you should do: take out about 10 books written in a language you don't understand (like 10 books written in Spanish). The language can be one that uses the Latin alphabet, or not. It doesn't matter. Rewrite the exact contents of each book. That means, WRITE the contents, don't analyse them. Don't even think about what it all might mean, just write it. And write it all. This is what will happen. Within about 60 minutes your brain WILL begin to adapt itself to the regularities of the language. In one day (supposing you work about 8 hours that day), you will already have a good feel for the syntax of the language. In about 3 to 5 days, you'll gradually begin to recognize stylistic regularities. And that means you work constantly 8 hours each day, no cheating, no breaks. After a week you will be able to reproduce very complex novel (and valid) written segments in that language, though you may not have a glimmer of what it all means. At this point, you'll find yourself in a very unusual position of being able to recognize a new written language, and even being able to write in that language, without having the faintest idea of what you're saying. Now to address Searle's question about whether or not you *understand* the language or not (remember, you're working off of 10 separate sources, so you are getting a wide perspective on the language that even foreign language students don't get), all you need to do is look inward. Just ask youself: what is your subjective impression? Trust me, it's a very weird feeling, I've tried something very similar to this experiment a countless number of times. I suspect that even without the aid of resources to tell you what means what, you will converge onto a sudden understanding of the language, almost as if you were hit by a bolt out of the blue.
wido@isgtec.uucp (Wido Menhardt) (11/25/90)
In article <7852@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > I offer you a sinple empirical test [ text deleted ] > Trust me, it's a very weird feeling, I've tried something very similar to ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ just what is it YOU tried ? > this experiment a countless number of times. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ so not even an INTEGER number ? this does not sound like experiments, more like speculation ... > I suspect that even without the aid of resources to tell you what means what, ^^^^^^^ right. > you will converge onto a sudden understanding of the language, almost as if > you were hit by a bolt out of the blue. whow. If this whole story is true, some other people will feel like hit by a bolt .. myself, for instance. I am looking forward to a reference to a (somewhat scientific) report/paper describing the experiments (including alphabet, language and ten book titles) in detail. If this confirms what you are saying, I am going to take the next three weeks off; buy ten titles of contemporary japanese literature plus paper and pens (which is probably a wrong start already); and start writing them; I always thought that language might be an asset, but never thought to have the time for it. -wido.
jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) (11/26/90)
In article <7852@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes:
-I offer you a sinple empirical test that will verify or refute the assertion
-Searle makes with this thought experiment. This is, however, a minor twist
-on the original idea, since it is YOU who will be the learning agent.
-
-The concept is real simple. Try to learn a new language by imitation.
-
-So here's what you should do: take out about 10 books written in a language you
-don't understand (like 10 books written in Spanish). The language can be one
-that uses the Latin alphabet, or not. It doesn't matter.
-
-Rewrite the exact contents of each book. That means, WRITE the contents, don't
-analyse them. Don't even think about what it all might mean, just write it.
-And write it all.
-
-This is what will happen. Within about 60 minutes your brain WILL begin to
-adapt itself to the regularities of the language. In one day (supposing you
-work about 8 hours that day), you will already have a good feel for the
-syntax of the language. In about 3 to 5 days, you'll gradually begin to
-recognize stylistic regularities.
-
-And that means you work constantly 8 hours each day, no cheating, no breaks.
-
-After a week you will be able to reproduce very complex novel (and valid)
-written segments in that language, though you may not have a glimmer of what
-it all means.
-
-At this point, you'll find yourself in a very unusual position of being able
-to recognize a new written language, and even being able to write in that
-language, without having the faintest idea of what you're saying.
-
-Now to address Searle's question about whether or not you *understand* the
-language or not (remember, you're working off of 10 separate sources, so
-you are getting a wide perspective on the language that even foreign language
-students don't get), all you need to do is look inward. Just ask youself:
-what is your subjective impression?
But this has *nothing* to do with Searle's argument, which is based on the
premise that the symbol manipulation algorithms are powerful enough to
enable the man in the room to *answer* questions that are posed in Chinese.
So far, you've only asserted that someone who follows your program will
be able to *recognize* the syntax of the foreign language, and perhaps
*generate* some syntactically valid strings. But that is an entirely
different set of skills than the ones required to *respond* to input
with the competence of a native speaker.
-I suspect that even without the aid of resources to tell you what means what,
-you will converge onto a sudden understanding of the language, almost as if
-you were hit by a bolt out of the blue.
I'll buy the idea that you might have a good feel for the syntax of a language
after such an intensive program of imitation, but *understanding*, in the sense
that Searle uses the term? No way!
-- Jim Lewissmoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) (11/27/90)
(Note: I am cross-posting this to comp.ai.philosophy, since that is where these discussions belong; and I hope future debate will be conducted there.) In article <7852@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: > >The concept is real simple. Try to learn a new language by imitation. > >So here's what you should do: take out about 10 books written in a language >you >don't understand (like 10 books written in Spanish). The language can be one >that uses the Latin alphabet, or not. It doesn't matter. > >Rewrite the exact contents of each book. That means, WRITE the contents, >don't >analyse them. Don't even think about what it all might mean, just write it. >And write it all. > >This is what will happen. Within about 60 minutes your brain WILL begin to >adapt itself to the regularities of the language. In one day (supposing you >work about 8 hours that day), you will already have a good feel for the >syntax of the language. In about 3 to 5 days, you'll gradually begin to >recognize stylistic regularities. > I noticed that the first reaction to this proposal was one of self-righteous skepticism. Unfortunately, it is very hard to deal with this situation with anything other than anecdotal evidence. Having said that, let me throw out two such anecdotes. One is personal. When I was a graduate student, we used to eat at a Chinese restaurant whose Chinese menu differed from the English menu. One of our group made up a pony, but the waiters refused to let us order by pointing. The eventual compromise which was established with the management was that we would be allowed to WRITE our orders. It was amazing how little time it took to begin to assimilate knowledge of how Chinese characters were put together and even to "parse" those symbols in terms of components which referred to specific food items. (Note that James McCawley has now taken some of the fun out of this exercise with his EATER'S GUIDE TO CHINESE CHARACTERS, but I suspect that variations on this anecdote will continue to unfold among Chinese food fanatics.) The other anecdote is not personal but IS pedagogical. Many decades ago, a fundamental element in the instruction of counterpoint at the Curtis Institute of Music involved copying out entire works by Palestrina. (This approach is, to the best of my knowledge, no longer in practice.) The point here is that the study of counterpoint involves learning a vast complex of constraint rules with little guidance about what to do with them. Copying "real" music gave the student an opportunity to observe the rules in action without having everything pointed out to him explicitly. The assumption was that there was something to be gained by picking up the habit of "writing Palestrina;" and for quite some time this was recognized as a valid pedagogical approach. (Perhaps we are encouraged to write quotations down on 3 X 5 cards not only as a source of reference material but also as an exercise in writing someone else's text.) ========================================================================= USPS: Stephen Smoliar 5000 Centinela Avenue #129 Los Angeles, California 90066 Internet: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu "It's only words . . . unless they're true."--David Mamet
hugh@fivegl.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) (11/28/90)
In article <7852@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >So here's what you should do: take out about 10 books written in a language you >don't understand (like 10 books written in Spanish). The language can be one >that uses the Latin alphabet, or not. It doesn't matter. > >Rewrite the exact contents of each book. That means, WRITE the contents, don't >analyse them. Don't even think about what it all might mean, just write it. >And write it all. > >This is what will happen. Within about 60 minutes your brain WILL begin to >adapt itself to the regularities of the language. In one day (supposing you >work about 8 hours that day), you will already have a good feel for the >syntax of the language. In about 3 to 5 days, you'll gradually begin to >recognize stylistic regularities. >... >After a week you will be able to reproduce very complex novel (and valid) >written segments in that language, though you may not have a glimmer of what >it all means. > >At this point, you'll find yourself in a very unusual position of being able >to recognize a new written language, and even being able to write in that >language, without having the faintest idea of what you're saying. > All the way through I was looking for the smilies... > >Trust me, it's a very weird feeling, I've tried something very similar to >this experiment a countless number of times. ...but now you have me interested. Don't leave us hanging here - what actually were the experiments you tried, and what were the results? What other history is there of such absorbtion techniques: for oral/written language, or for non-linguistic learning? -- | Hugh Grierson | hugh@fivegl.co.nz | 5GL International Ltd | PH: +64.9.3021621 | Auckland, New Zealand | FAX: +64.9.3021617
longc@cs.fau.edu (Courtney Long) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.003642.22319@fivegl.co.nz> hugh@fivegl.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) writes: >In article <7852@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: >>So here's what you should do: take out about 10 books written in a language you >>don't understand (like 10 books written in Spanish). The language can be one >>that uses the Latin alphabet, or not. It doesn't matter. >> >>Rewrite the exact contents of each book. That means, WRITE the contents, don't >>analyse them. Don't even think about what it all might mean, just write it. >>And write it all. >> >>This is what will happen. Within about 60 minutes your brain WILL begin to >>adapt itself to the regularities of the language. In one day (supposing you >>work about 8 hours that day), you will already have a good feel for the >>syntax of the language. In about 3 to 5 days, you'll gradually begin to >>recognize stylistic regularities. >>... >>After a week you will be able to reproduce very complex novel (and valid) >>written segments in that language, though you may not have a glimmer of what >>it all means. >> >>At this point, you'll find yourself in a very unusual position of being able >>to recognize a new written language, and even being able to write in that >>language, without having the faintest idea of what you're saying. >> > >All the way through I was looking for the smilies... > >> >>Trust me, it's a very weird feeling, I've tried something very similar to >>this experiment a countless number of times. >techniques: for oral/written language, or for non-linguistic learning? It's true. When I studied jazz, I would often transcribe solos of various artists. As a guitar player I studied Wes Montgomery, and transcribed many of his solos. What made this different, however, is that I would listen to the solo, and then write down the notes. Maybe this is slightly different that just copying the notes of his solo to another page? > >-- > | Hugh Grierson | hugh@fivegl.co.nz > | 5GL International Ltd | PH: +64.9.3021621 > | Auckland, New Zealand | FAX: +64.9.3021617
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (11/29/90)
In article <1990Nov28.003642.22319@fivegl.co.nz> hugh@fivegl.co.nz (Hugh Grierson) writes: >>Trust me, it's a very weird feeling, I've tried something very similar to >>this experiment a countless number of times. > >...but now you have me interested. > >Don't leave us hanging here - what actually were the experiments you tried, >and what were the results? One of the more interesting cases that comes to mind is VAX binary: i.e. reading executable files without any translation references. I didn't spend more than a couple days on that but got as far as being able to recognize what happen to correspond to addressing modes and instruction opcodes. If it isn't too late for you (meaning if you already have experience with and knowledge of assembly languages), try it. The analogy of this experience will give you an appreciation of what a machine has to go through in 'learning' human language. >What other history is there of such absorbtion techniques: for oral/written >language, or for non-linguistic learning? As a matter of course, (last I heard), Hungarians teach their foreign-language students from texts written completely in Hungarian. It's very effective. This is slightly different though, in that you have a translation reference (initially: pictures, later: subsets of Hungarian itself).
markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) (12/01/90)
On the question: If you undergo intensive immersion training of a language using no translation references is it possible to eventually converge onto an understanding of that language? In article <1990Nov26.055429.8883@agate.berkeley.edu> jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >I'll buy the idea that you might have a good feel for the syntax of a language >after such an intensive program of imitation, but *understanding*, in the sense >that Searle uses the term? No way! > >-- Jim Lewis A very similar situation is going on collectively with researchers who are progressively deciphering Mayan Hieroglyphic text ... and recently there has been some success at partially undercovering the meaning of the symbols. Even the little understanding accomplished to date is enough to prove that understanding may be possible without any substantial external references...
jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) (12/01/90)
In article <7989@uwm.edu> markh@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Mark William Hopkins) writes: -On the question: -If you undergo intensive immersion training of a language using no translation -references is it possible to eventually converge onto an understanding of that -language? - -In article <1990Nov26.055429.8883@agate.berkeley.edu> jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: ->I'll buy the idea that you might have a good feel for the syntax of a language ->after such an intensive program of imitation, but *understanding*, in the sense ->that Searle uses the term? No way! - -A very similar situation is going on collectively with researchers who are -progressively deciphering Mayan Hieroglyphic text ... and recently there has -been some success at partially undercovering the meaning of the symbols. Ok, but remember, you stipulated "no analysis, just copying" in your original post -- these folks are doing something (intensve analysis) quite different from what you proposed! -Even the little understanding accomplished to date is enough to prove that -understanding may be possible without any substantial external references... I guess the interesting question is "how much of a reference do you need?" What is the "critical mass" of semantic content you need to infer from other sources before you can start bootstrapping your degree of understanding? How much of a reference do we have with respect to an unknown human culture, just by virtue of the fact that, as humans, a large kernel of knowledge and experiences are going to be represented in both our "knowledge bases"? Is SETI doomed from the start, or would we be able to communicate with a hypothetical extra-terrestrial culture given only that we both possess the ability to (say) send and receive radio signals? -- Jim Lewis
wachtel@canon.co.uk (Tom Wachtel) (12/03/90)
In article <1990Nov26.055429.8883@agate.berkeley.edu> jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >I'll buy the idea that you might have a good feel for the syntax of a language >after such an intensive program of imitation, but *understanding*, in the sense >that Searle uses the term? No way! > >-- Jim Lewis The technique of teaching a foreign language using the target language as the sole medium of communication has been around for several decades (literally) and is very successful, in general. In fact, using translation to convey the meaning of a foreign language is the thing that is out of date and known to be self-defeating. This may be hard to believe if you have never experienced it (from either side). The thing is that it's not just imitation, but communication. It's really not even a radical issue any more. -- Tom Wachtel
fleck@cressida.ecs.ox.ac.uk (Margaret Fleck) (12/04/90)
>A very similar situation is going on collectively with researchers who are >progressively deciphering Mayan Hieroglyphic text ... and recently there has >been some success at partially undercovering the meaning of the symbols. It's been a few years since I was last up-to-date with research in that area. However, external knowledge was definitely used in early stages of the decipherment, including (at least): (1) A pseudo-alphabet surviving from the Spanish conquest, critical in early stages of breaking the phonetic parts of the sign system. (2) Knowledge of living Mayan languages, including meanings of words in them (since some of the bits of signs are phonetic). Information from related languages was also used in deciphering many of the ancient Near Eastern languages. A big exception was Sumerian, not closely related to any known language, for which explicit dictionaries (from Akkadian) were available. (3) Surviving knowledge of the calendar system, some of which is *still* in use by certain Indian groups. The modern languages also preserve the base 20 number system. (4) Semantic cues in the form of signs, e.g. one of the two systems of numbers has a really obvious structure of bars and dots. (5) Modern astonomical knowledge, used to pin down dates for events reported in the texts and check hypotheses that certain texts referred to astronomical events. (6) Knowledge about what humans write on inscriptions: a big breakthrough came when someone noticed that certain sequences of dates fit the pattern of birth, death, and accession dates for a sequence of rulers. If all the surviving texts had been abstract poetry, they would have been much harder to decipher. A lot of information about the pattern of signs was extracted by simply examining lots of text. This is a good method, for example, of getting preliminary ideas about which patterns of lines represent the same character. (Not obvious at first glance for e.g. the head-shaped numbers in Mayan hieroglyphics.) But the decipherment proper--the matching of symbols to meanings--used external information. Margaret Fleck (Oxford)
jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) (12/05/90)
In article <1990Dec3.134710.25467@canon.co.uk> wachtel@canon.co.uk (Tom Wachtel) writes: >In article <1990Nov26.055429.8883@agate.berkeley.edu> jwl@garnet.berkeley.edu (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>I'll buy the idea that you might have a good feel for the syntax of a language >>after such an intensive program of imitation, but *understanding*, in the sense >>that Searle uses the term? No way! > >The technique of teaching a foreign language using the target language >as the sole medium of communication has been around for several decades >(literally) and is very successful, in general. In learning by immersion, the foreign text is not the only channel of communication. The student can often infer the meaning of a new phrase from social convention (e.g. the first foreign phrase taught will almost certainly be some sort of greeting), by gestures (pointing to objects when teaching their names), and by trial-and-error (taking advantage of the positive and negative feedback provided by the teacher). In learning by *imitation* (as discussed here), as opposed to immersion, none of these cues are present. Under those circumstances, I don't see any way to assign meaning to the symbols being manipulated, even if we assume that the syntax is learnable. (I'll concede the theoretical possibility, given a sufficiently large body of foreign text, but the original proposal stipulated "no analysis, just copying", which is a pretty tough constraint.) -- Jim Lewis
osborn@ultima.socs.uts.edu.au (An Approxamaton) (12/17/90)
miller@b17a.INGR.COM (David S. Miller) writes: > Symbols that don't stand for anything aren't symbols at all! OK... ...what do you mean by anything? And how does the something (proto-symbol) come to stand for it? Maybe the something also stands for "something" when it doesn't standing for anything else? I wonder what! Tomasso. -- Tom Osborn, "Integrity is not enough... School of Computing Sciences, ...you need pepper and salt, too." University of Technology, Sydney, PO Box 123 Broadway 2007, AUSTRALIA. Gregory Peck.