From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:33:57 EST 1992
Article 4146 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!uwm.edu!wupost!darwin.sura.net!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
References: <1992Feb27.182302.5525@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb27.195843.8254@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb28.004323.11389@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.224306.3433@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 92 22:43:06 GMT

In article <1992Feb28.004323.11389@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <1992Feb27.195843.8254@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb27.182302.5525@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>>
>>>NOTE: The system's language *IS* Chinese!!!
>>>Repeat after me slowly "The system speaks Chinese, not English!"
>>  Ok, then you are changing the system from the one that Searle is talking
>>about because in Searle's system the man in the room speaks english.
>>In any event, repeat after me slowly, "IT Doesn't Matter, because this
>>makes a special case"  That is to say, using a systems argument, if a
>
>   I am disapointed, after I told you to repeat slowly, tsk tsk.. :-)
>We are not talking of any particular component of the system, we
>are talking of *THE* system. This included the person in the room
>and all of the books, symbols, connections (how does he know which
>book to look up the correct symbols, etc..) The person can be
>replaced by a computer (something obviously non-intelligent, or
>even a giant tinkertoy set with an electric motor (to drive it!))
    Ok, there are a couple of things here that need to be cleaned up on 
your part.  Either, 1.) by saying "The system's language *IS* chinese"
you mean that the system ONLY speaks chinese and has no constituents
that speak other languages.  But, based on your reply, I can see that 
this is not what you mean.  So, then you are saying, 2.) Because a system
can take in chinese squiggles and put out chinese squaggles you are
saying that the system speaks chinese.  By speaking chinese we either
mean that the system *understands* chinese, or the crux of this debate,
or the system simply is capable of producing correct output without 
*understanding*.  If you took me to be saying the latter, that the
system outputs correctly sans understanding, you have missed the point
of the definition of "speaking" that I have been utiilzing and in this
way would have misunderstood my refutation--afterall, I am arguing that
a system can produce correct outputs without understanding.  Rather,
I was attacking the premise that the system does indeed understand.  In 
this case, I was refering to the first definition, that the system understands
chinese--which, as said many times before, is the substance of this debate.
Thus, by stating that the system speaks chinese and by properly understanding
the definition that I am refuting, to say "Read slowly,etc, "But the
systems language *IS* chinese" is simply to beg the question.

>>>
>>>There is no requirement for any intelligent person to be a causal
>>>agent! I am aware of several mathematical savants that would
>>>never initiate an investigation, but when asked a question
>>>and they answer it, there is no doubt in any persons mind
>>>that there is *some* kind of vast intelligence at work!
>>>
>>  But, Anton, we aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about
>>understanding.  Unless, of course, you hold them to be the same thing.
>>
>I think that we are talking of intelligence, or can you show me how
>you can understand something without intelligence? A dolphin has
>understanding of some symbols, eg. you clap and it jumps through a 
>hoop, does this show understanding, does it show intelligence?
>
>When someone understands something, it is always an understanding
>about that thing. The understanding is never divorced from the
>object being understood (eg. I understand something, but I forgot
>what I understand. ;^) In effect, when we talk of understanding
>you are always talking of something intelligent. (If I did not
>think that you are intelligent I would not be trying to make
>you understand!)
>
>If you want to argue that consciousness is different from understanding
>then you do have a point, but again I would argue that it is
>nothing special, and could be duplicated with a machine. (I think
>that I have covered some of this before.)
  Ok, this is an interesting question:  What is the difference between
intelligence and understanding?  However, it doesn't fit with the 
current question at hand, ie does a system understand.  
Perhaps a new message thread could be initiated to separate these two;
in fact, I think it might be helpful in terms of understanding(heh) what
we mean by understanding.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

BTW, I am beginning to understand this stance that you are taking; and
, in fact, am finding my self persuaded for the time being.  However,
I want to defer an opinion other than what was stated above for now.


------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


