From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!pauld Wed Feb 26 12:53:35 EST 1992
Article 3923 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!olivea!spool.mu.edu!wupost!micro-heart-of-gold.mit.edu!uw-beaver!pauld
>From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb21.201635.13686@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Date: 21 Feb 92 20:16:35 GMT
References: <1992Feb18.220310.8214@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Feb19.171517.5784@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb21.143124.24778@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
Lines: 23


I doubt that this a new viewpoint on Searle's thought experiment, but
what's fundamentally wrong with taking the position that neither a
Chinese speaker nor the Chinese Room understand chinese ? That is to
say, in neither case is there any special magic going on, and that
moreover, any special aspects of the Chinese speaker (such as their
belief that they have some unique grasp of the semantics of the
language) is utterly fictional.

Instead of trying to elevate the CR to the status of a native human
speaker, why not ask the question in reverse ? If a CR can speak
chinese without causal powers, why should a chinese speaker have
causal powers ? Why pay so much attention (and give so much authority)
to your own and others' claims and impressions that you "understand" ?

Those with the foresight to see through my mis-worded description
might see an attempt to push "taking the intentional stance" a
little further.

== paul
-- 
Computer Science Laboratory	  "truth is out of style" - MC 900ft Jesus
University of Washington 		<pauld@cs.washington.edu>


