What is the main proponent argument against the claim that a system lacking embodiment cannot understand language?

What is the main proponent argument against the claim that a system lacking embodiment cannot understand language?

• A. The system as a whole could have understanding if it possessed perceptual and motor capacities.
• B. The look-up table alone is sufficient for understanding.
• C. Understanding requires human-like emotions only.
• D. Embodyment is irrelevant to understanding.

Answer: (C)

Understanding language can, in some views, arise from purely symbolic processing without grounding in perception or action. The strongest counterexample to the claim that embodiment is necessary is that a system could, in principle, map linguistic inputs to meanings using a fixed set of rules or a look-up table, producing correct understanding without sensorimotor interaction. This shows that understanding can emerge from internal computation rather than bodily grounding, at least under certain ways of characterizing understanding. The other options misstate the argument: claiming that embodiment is required (A), insisting that emotions are the sole basis for understanding (C), or asserting embodiment is irrelevant in all cases (D) do not capture the targeted critique as precisely as the look-up table idea does.

Understanding language can, in some views, arise from purely symbolic processing without grounding in perception or action. The strongest counterexample to the claim that embodiment is necessary is that a system could, in principle, map linguistic inputs to meanings using a fixed set of rules or a look-up table, producing correct understanding without sensorimotor interaction. This shows that understanding can emerge from internal computation rather than bodily grounding, at least under certain ways of characterizing understanding. The other options misstate the argument: claiming that embodiment is required (A), insisting that emotions are the sole basis for understanding (C), or asserting embodiment is irrelevant in all cases (D) do not capture the targeted critique as precisely as the look-up table idea does.