From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Wed Feb 26 12:53:47 EST 1992
Article 3942 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.071810.16573@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 23 Feb 92 07:18:10 GMT
References: <1992Feb19.172251.7320@psych.toronto.edu> <438@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb22.234830.17713@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 42

>The systems reply says: it's not the man in the room that understands
>but the system as a whole: the man, the room, the slips of paper, the
>rule books, etc.
>
>Searle responds: fine. Put the whole system in the man. Have him memorize
>the symbols, the rules, etc., and get rid of the room. Have him walk about
>like a sort of Chinese deaf-mute who can only communicate via written     
>messages. Now you've got the system in the man and can discover whether the
>system understands any bettter than did the man-as-part-of-the-system.
>You ask him -- the system -- whether it understands Chinese.
>He still replies "in his native language" that he doesn't understand a
>word of Chinese.
>

It seems to me that the man cannot respond in any way but to say "Yes I understand
Chinese!" He has all the requirements, He can do anything that a native Chinese
speaker can. There is no need for him to assume that native Chinese speakers do
it in a different way. In short, I have serious doubts that someone can memorize
rules for interacting with Chinese speakers and still not understand.

What many people on this net fail to realize is that intelligence is not in the
language spoken, it is the ability to learn the language. As for consciousness,
it is always about 'something'. For instance, you cannot be conscious, but not
intelligent, and I have not heard a good argument to the contrairy, that intelligence
can exist without consciousness.

On the other hand, I may be wrong, I may be missing something 'KEY' in this argument
of Searle's. If so I would like to invite anyone to explain simply this;
How can a man act like he is conscious (understands Chinese) yet not understand it?
What is Searle's symbol manipulating man (SSMM) missing, if anything, and how
can we tell (or himself for that matter).
Someone has suggested that the SSMM may be missing QUALIA (sp?) hence his introspection
should reveal to him that he does not have any (introspection that is!) But if he
is indeed missing introspection then that should be evident to outside observers and
will manifest itself in his behaviour. So this cannot be the solution for Searle,
he is explicitely willing to grant that the SSMM's behaviour be indistingushable from
a real man's.

I humbly wait for an answer.


-- AZ -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca


