From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Wed Feb 26 12:53:27 EST 1992
Article 3913 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.143124.24778@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb18.220310.8214@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Feb19.171517.5784@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1992 14:31:24 GMT

In article <1992Feb19.171517.5784@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Feb18.220310.8214@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>
>>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.

Oh, yah? I wonder who is. In any case you seem to have reading problems.
Otherwise you might have noticed the following in Searle's _Minds, Brains and
Programs_ (not _Science_; are we talking about the same article, or your 
reading skills failing you again?):
`Thus, for example, you are given the following story: "A man went into 
a restaurant...."', 
and few lines below :
'When a machine is given the story and then asked the question, the machine will print out answers...'

>_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?
>
You seem not to have noticed that this is the interpretation I am questioning.

>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.
>-- 
Is this all you have noticed in my posting? How sad.
Well, I can see two explanations:
1. Lacking an argument you are picking on an irrelevant detail in an attempt 
to make me look stupid. If so, I am disappointed. You could have done better.
How about accusing me of condoning exploitation of women?
In fact, the above is an example of a very simple psychological mechanism. 
Don't you know it?
2. You did want to understand my point but the argument was too difficult. Let
me know if this is the case, I'll try to make it more explicit. For starters,
let me explain the following: I am aware of the fact that some people believe
in a platonic realm populated by souls of hamburgers etc. However, I purpously
used the behaviorist interpretation of understanding to make the contrast
between the two levels of  of understanding as clear as possible. Try to reread
my posting again and see if it now makes sense. You do not have to agree, but
at least try to make a sensible argument.

>Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
>Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
>University of Toronto
>---------------------


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


