From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Wed Feb 26 12:54:10 EST 1992
Article 3978 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: <1992Feb24.231735.4404@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Feb22.181122.12088@oracorp.com> <6254@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 23:17:35 GMT

In article <6254@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>Some AI types are claiming that "understand" as used in Searle's
>arguments needs to be defined, explained, etc before they will take
>it seriously.  If they don't think there's something obscure about it,
>why don't they just tell us what it means and save a lot of time and
>net bandwidth.
>
>Instead, whenever someone like Harnad tries to explain it, they
>accuse them of indulging in debating tricks.
>
>Indeed, if Harnad's explanation didn't help at all, why not?
>What is this notion of understanding that you think is relevant
>and that he failed to explain?  That, at least, is pretty obscure
>to me.
>
Although I am not an 'AI type', I find Searle's use of word 'understanding'
too fuzzy. I have already pointed out in a previous posting that the stories
presented to CR can be 'understood' at different levels,  and argued that for
a certain meaning of the stories the precise meaning of the words is irrelevant.
Hence one can understand certain aspects of the stories without knowing what
a 'hamburger' or a 'restaurant' is. May be I have not my point clear enough,
I ll try again.

    Some time ago someone in this newsgroup told a following (true) story
which I find very relevant to the on-going discussion about understanding:
    A group of English math teachers was having a refresher course. It was in
old days when they still had this funny monetary system: 12 pennies to one
shilling and 20 shillings to a pound. The teachers were given a definition of
a number system where there were 12 pexies (I do not remember what name they 
were given, but it was something totally abstract) to one shexy and 20 shexies
to one poxy. And then they were asked to do arithmetic problems using this
number systems. They had a lot of trouble working out those problems until
someone realised that 'this is just money!'. From this time on they were doing
the problem with great ease. 
    First, the question arises whether one can be said to 'understand' this
number system (1 poxy=20shexies=240 pexies) without knowing that these are 
pennies, shillings and pounds. I suggest that a person who can do arithmetic
problems within this number system can be said to understand it even if he/she
does not know that it corresponds to the old British monetary system. Anyone
against?
    Second, knowing that these are like pennies etc, made the problems much 
easier for the teachers, because the realations between pennies, shillings and
pounds was deeply ingraind into their minds by constant use of these terms in
many different circumstances.
    In a similiar way, the story which is presented to CR can be considered 
a puzzle (together with the question) to be solved. Since there are more words
in the story than in the number example above (only three) and relationships
between these words are more complicated than the rules of the number system
above, you need a computer to solve the puzzle, but it can be done without
knowing precise meaning of the words. To solve arithmetic problems in the 
example above one did not need to know that pennies were round, made of copper
and that a pint of milk in those days used to cost a sixpence. And still
solving the arithmetic problems correctly indicated that one understood the
problems. Anyone against? Why is then incorrect to say that answering 
correctly the questions put to CR indicates that it understands a certain
meaning of the story, even if the person inside does not understand the exact
meaning of the words? Hanard's trick obscures totally the fact that the story
can be understood a different levels. A single word 'understand' does not 
distinguish between these different levels.
   There is a level at which the story can be understood without understanding
the words. Is this so difficult to understand (:-))?

>-- jd


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


