From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Mon Mar  9 18:34:07 EST 1992
Article 4157 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Intelligence and Understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.080019.9272@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 29 Feb 92 08:00:19 GMT
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 110

In article   writes:
>stott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
>Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
>Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
>Message-ID: <1992Feb28.224306.3433@a.cs.okstate.edu>
>Date: 28 Feb 92 22:43:06 GMT
>References: <1992Feb27.182302.5525@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb27.195843.8254@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb28.004323.11389@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
>Lines: 91
>
>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!!!
>>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 
	No, the system may have as many constituents as there are
angels on the head of a pin. The system is the system, the parts
are the parts - never the twain shall meet.

>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,
	Correct, I have made the claim that the system *UNDERSTANDS*
Chinese, but does not understand Engli.

>or the system simply is capable of producing correct output without 
>*understanding*.  If you took me to be saying the latter, that the
	I know not what it means to produce the correct output without
understanding. Sure, it could work for simple cases - where no context
is required (eg. 2+2 = 4) but even here I would argue that understanding
is prerequisit! Simply try asking a question of a person that does not
require *any* understanding. The system simply has to understand the
input to produce the correct output. (and, yes, I believe that its
understanding is EXACTLY like ours! There are obvious differences
though, if the Chinese room could not see - then like a blind person
it would not have any understanding of vision!)

>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.

In what way am I assuming what I want to prove? I am merely stating a
fact, that the system speaks Chinese. This 'fact' is provided for our
pleasure by Searle.
>
>>>>
>>>>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
[...deleted]
>>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.

I would very much welcome such a definition from the Searlian community,
however their response to such was akin to "understanding is what you
understand it to mean!" Talk about begging the question.
	I know that it is difficult to pin down the word, but I think
all we have to look to is the usage of the word. (Unless, of course,
you might believe that words have a meaning independent of human
usage.)
>
>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.

Thank you, I only want people to understand the stance, not necessarily
agree with me in every detail (however I would welcome that too :)
I am not writing this from the point of an argument, but rather from
my point of view, that may be correct or incorrect - but I need to
flog this point of view with a heavy whip to see if it can break down!
-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


