From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Wed Feb 26 12:53:59 EST 1992
Article 3960 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3960 sci.philosophy.tech:2171
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!ogicse!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.100036.9114@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 24 Feb 92 15:00:34 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1992Feb24.100036.9114
References: <1992Feb23.071810.16573@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb24.044654.12505@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb24.083303.20762@u.washington.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 99
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Feb24.083303.20762@u.washington.edu> 
forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes:

>In article <1992Feb24.044654.12505@psych.toronto.edu> 
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:

>>In article <1992Feb23.071810.16573@ccu.umanitoba.ca> 
>>zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:

CG:
>>>>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.

AZ:
>>>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.

CG:
>>I think you've lost track of the fact that all the rules the man is using
>>are purely syntactic. All the Chinese symbols he uses are still purely
>>formal and uninterpreted. Thus, what he is missing is their *meaning*.
>>And without their meaning, surely he cannot be said to understand them.

GF:
>It seems to me that one has to first accept the premises that semantics is
>not reducable to syntax and machines only manipulating symbols acording
>to syntatic rules.

This is not a premiss of Searle's argument, but its conclusion.

GF:
> 		    If one truely accept that the machine produced behavior
>indistinguishable from human who understand then it is not obvious that
>both of these presises can still be consistantly held.

This is clearly a matter of opinion, or, better, understanding.

GF:
>If one accepts the theoretical possibility of the giant look up table then
>it is pretty clear that the behavioral content of semantics can indeed be
>reduced to syntax.

`Behavioral content of semantics' is an oxymoron.  Try pragmatics.

GF:
>		    What is the extra component of semantics which has no
>effect on linguistic production?

Meaning.  And, in fact, it certainly has a crucial effect on linguistic
production, -- otherwise, how would you produce the table in the first place?

GF:
>-------
>
>On a slightly related topic...
>
>In the split brain experiments there were some who could verbally identify
>objects when held in one hand and could write what the object was when held
>in the other hand.  Would you say that the person didn't understand what the
>objects were when verbal communication could not be given?

I don't see what the difference between oral and written expression has to
do with anything that need concern us here.  By the way, both written and
oral forms are species of verbal communication.

GF:
>Likewise, if an individual said in English "I do not understand Chinese" when
>asked orally in English if she understood Chinese but wrote "Yes, I understand
>Chinese" when viewing the question in Chinese, would you say the person does
>not understand Chinese?

How do you know he is telling the truth in either case?

>--gary forbis@u.washington.edu

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


