[ExI] Wernicke's aphasia and the CRA

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/12/7 Gordon Swobe <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>:

> I've taken the position that for the thought experiment portion of Searle's CRA to have any value -- that if we should consider it anything more than mere philosophical hand-waving -- then it must first qualify as a valid scientific experiment. To qualify as such, it must work in a context-independent manner; scientists anywhere in the universe should obtain the same results using the same man in the room. And for that to happen, I argue, the man in the room must lack knowledge not only of the meanings of Chinese symbols, but also the words and symbols of every possible language in the universe. He must have no semantics whatsoever.

I don't see why you say that. He simply needs to carry out a purely
mechanical process, like a factory labourer.

> Somewhat tongue in cheek, I continued my argument by stating the subject would need to undergo brain surgery prior to the experiment to remove the relevant parts of his brain. I then did a little research and learned we would need to remove Wernicke's area, and learned also of this interesting phenomenon of Wernicke's aphasia.
>
> One might consider the existence of Wernicke's aphasia as evidence supporting Searle's third premise in his CRA, that 'syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics'. People with this strange malady have an obvious grasp of syntax but also clearly have no idea what they're talking about!

It is probably true that syntax is not sufficient for semantics. We
could study an alien language and, with enough examples, work out all
the criteria for well-formed sentences, but still not have the
faintest idea what even a single word in the language means.

>> In other words,the components don't know what they're doing, but the
>> system does.
>
> So goes the systems reply to the CRA, one of many that Searle fielded with varying degrees of success depending on who you ask.

It seems that Searle just doesn't get the difference between a system
and its components. We agree that the brain as a whole understands
language, but that does not mean that the neurons understand language.
Even if the neurons had their own separate intelligence and were
telepathically linked, discussing when they were going to release
certain neurotransmitters and so on, they need not have any
understanding of the language the brain understands.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou