From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov!dlyndes Thu Jan 16 17:21:35 EST 1992
Article 2703 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:2703 sci.philosophy.tech:1841 sci.logic:798
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!bcm!aio!gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov!dlyndes
>From: dlyndes@gothamcity.jsc.nasa.gov (David Lyndes)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech,sci.logic
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <1992Jan14.173151.17459@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Date: 14 Jan 1992 17:31:51 GMT
References: <1992Jan7.031553.24886@oracorp.com> <1992Jan7.105117.7193@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Jan7.191853.17310@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <5925@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan9.211337.14379@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <5939@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan13.230532.26592@gpu.utcs.u
toronto.ca>
Sender: news@aio.jsc.nasa.gov (USENET News System)
Reply-To: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov
Organization: Barrios Technology @ NASA/JSC; Houston
Lines: 61

In article <1992Jan13.230532.26592@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:

|> But the point is not whether you know what you understand or not, but how do
|> you decide whether someone (or something) else understands. Can you say
|> what criteria do you use? Isn't this the place where knowing exactly what
|> understanding is would help?
 ...
|> So what? Discussing an issue which is not well-defined is even a faster way
|> of getting to nowhere.

A few methodological points may help (maybe not):

(1) Part of the problem is that we do not know what understanding is.  If we
    had clear criterion for what counts as understanding, then it seems
    to me to be a relatively trivial matter to decide whether "machines"
    could have it.

(2) Part of the purpose of this "grand conversation" is to hash out,
    simultaneously, what a "machine" is, and what understanding (and other
    intentional attitudes) is (are).

(3) It is during this conversation that insight and clarity may be achieved
    with respect to the concepts.  We cannot demand the insight and 
    clarification beforehand.

(4) What we have agreement on so far is:

    (a) There are behavioral tests which can EXCLUDE something from the
        ranks of "understanding beings".  That is, passing behavioral tests
        (or the abilityto pass) are a necessary but not necessarily
        sufficient test.

(5) And the general points of disagreement seem to be:

    (b) We have disagrement as to whether behavioral tests can be a sufficient
        test.  Note that I said "test".  Nobody has explicitly proposed
        operationalism or behaviorism.  Although some people have been
        accused of saying things which imply behaviorism or operationalism.

    (c) We have disagreement as to whether certain proposed additional tests
        are legit.  Proposed additional tests include:

        - ability to "decide" mathematically undecidable propositions.

        - has "real" intentionality (as opposed to just "behaves as though
          it were intentional").

        Both of these sub-conversations have gone so far into detail, that
        it is hard for the outsider to keep track of what's going on, what
        the big picture is.

        If there is interest, I can try to summarize what I think has gone 
        on in these discussions.
-- 

	 +-------------------------------------+
	 | David K. Lyndes                     |
	 | Barrios Technology                  |
	 | email: dlyndes@deltahp.jsc.nasa.gov | 
	 |       Its my own opinion            |
	 +-------------------------------------+


