From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Thu Jan  9 10:33:47 EST 1992
Article 2523 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2523 sci.philosophy.tech:1740 sci.logic:746
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
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: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan7.191853.17310@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Jan7.031553.24886@oracorp.com> <1992Jan7.105117.7193@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1992 19:18:53 GMT

In article <1992Jan7.105117.7193@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
...
>tasks.  Indeed, it is arguably true that all understanding is fundamentally
>non-algorithmic; however, in view of our past disagreements, I shan't
>repeat an argument to that effect, limiting myself to the claim that it is
>intuitively obvious to me that I am capable of understanding.
>
...
>:                                                             so     :
>: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
>: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
>: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
>: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
>:                                                                    :
>'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`

It would save a lot of time and bandwidth if we first decided what is meant by
'undertanding'. Is there an unambiguous definition of the notion of
'understanding'? If there isn't one ('undertanding' being an intuitive
notion) then most of the discussions here are pointless, since different
people have different inutitions and everyone aruges about his own private 
ideas pretending they all talk about the same thing. 
In my opinion much of the Chinese Room discussion falls into this category.
Listening to some of the pro-Searle arguments one gets an impression that
the word 'understanding' could not be applied to an abstract branch of math,
say abstract group theory.  An attempt by someone here to feed CR with 
elementary arithmetics got derailed by demands that CR 'understands' that
'2' may mean 'two apples' or 'two oranges' or something like this. However,
if we feed CR with basics of abstract group theory and then proceed to ask it
questions which it answers correctly, how will it's 'understanding' differ
from that of a human being?
-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


