From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Thu Jan 16 17:19:40 EST 1992
Article 2640 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Robot Reply
Message-ID: <5948@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 10 Jan 92 18:55:24 GMT
References: <1992Jan9.181611.834@oracorp.com>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 35

In article <1992Jan9.181611.834@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>Jeff Dalton writes:
>> Note the "if Searle is right about ..." part. The point is not
>> "is Searle right about ..." but *if* he's right, what difference
>> do sensors make?
>
>I think the point of the Robot Reply, the Systems Reply, etc. is that
>Searle is *not* right; 

Well, fine, but that's another issue, for other messages.

>> There is no equivalent supposition that humans have no understanding
>> without sensors.  Of course, sensors help in learning.  But if a
>> person was in a Turing Test, the person can ignore everything except
>> what's coming in on the teletype and still understand what's being
>> said.  A computer in the same situation is just the case we're
>> supposing Searle is right about.
>
>If you claim that understanding means having a causal connection
>between the words we use and the real-world objects they represent,

I don't think I have made any particular claim in this area.

>then disconnecting a human from the real world would similarly
>eliminate *human* understanding. I can have a conversation about
>apples, or hamburgers, or whatever, but if the only input device for
>the human is a terminal, then he has no way of knowing that my words
>have any connection with the real world. I could be lying about eating
>a hamburger, or whatever.

So?  So what if you're lying?  That hardly means I no longer know
what "hamburger" means!  You could send me e-mail that said you
were eating a hamburger.  For all I know that's a lie.  But even
if I never see another hamburger again I still know what the word
means.


