From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Thu Feb 20 15:22:07 EST 1992
Article 3867 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb19.171517.5784@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb18.220310.8214@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1992 17:15:17 GMT

In article <1992Feb18.220310.8214@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>>I think you're right but not in the way you intended. The question is,
>>"Does the Chinese room understand *Chinese*?"
>
>No, the question is "Does the Chinese Room understand the story"?

The story? What story? I'm afraid you're out to lunch on this one.
_Minds, Brains, and Science_, p. 32:
   Suppose for the sake of argument that the computer's answers are as
   good as those of a natice Chinese speaker.  Now, then, does the computer,
   on the basis of this, understand Chinese, does it literally understand
   Chinese, in the same way that Chinese speakers understand Chinese?

By the way, salvating to the word "hamburger" is hardly equivalent to
understanding the word "hamburger". Only the most rank behaviorist
would countenance this as a viable semantic theory.
-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


