From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!emory!gwinnett!de Thu Jan 16 17:21:48 EST 1992
Article 2726 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1850 comp.ai.philosophy:2726
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!nstn.ns.ca!aunro!ukma!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!mips!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!emory!gwinnett!de
psych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Behavior in the Bart Room
Message-ID: <X39JeB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 14 Jan 92 22:16:56 GMT
Lines: 97

In article <5939@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>>Actually, it would _waste_ a lot of time arguing about definitions
>>>of understanding.
>
>I stand by the claim that it will be a waste of time.  A tremendous
>waste of time.  Virtually every net debate about definitions confirms
>this, in my opinion.

Andrej Pindor writes:
>This only shows that there is a lot of ambiguity about the term
>('understanding') and confirms, in my opinion, a need to decide on a definition
>of sorts - something which could be used as a criterion.

<AP>:
>>I have to disagree. Understanding a language is an issue burdened
>>with too many irrelevant (for the present purpose) side issues.
>
>Not at all.  All that's required is the distinnction between
>a language you understand and one you do not.  I happen not to
>understadn Chinese.  I don't see much problem is deciding this.
>I don't have to go into subtleties.

AP:
>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?

Even a human being can be "programmed" to appear to know more than
sh/e does.  But sometimes if you spend enough time with that
person you suddenly have the insight, "Hey, this guy is dumb as a
post!  He doesn't understand anything!"

Let us suppose that Bart Simpson was actually twins.  An
unscrupulous adoption agent swindled Homer and Marge into signing
away one of the twins (by some subterfuge or other -- the Simpsons
aren't too bright) and sold the twin to a highly intelligent but
infertile couple.  One of the couple is a theoretical physicist
and the other is a poet. (If you insist on a non-sexist paradigm
you can make the adoptive mother the physicist and the adoptive
father the poet.) Hardheadedly realistic about everything else in
their lives, this couple can't shake the conviction that their
adopted son is gifted.  Every morning and evening at breakfast and
dinner, in what we may call the Bart Room, they discus every topic
of intellectual interest, and make every effort to include the
boy, whom they have by coincidence have also named Bart.  They
discuss Serale's Chinese Room, AI, algorithmic reasoning, logical
analysis, phenomenology, deconstruction, and the poetry of Robert
Frost.

Imagine now that you are visiting them in the Bart Room and they
bring out their pride and joy and declare that he is highly
precocious.  They may even begin a discussion of the joys and
problems of parenting a gifted child.  When they are called away
on an errand they feel they are not being at all inhospitable in
leaving you in Bart's company for the time they will be gone since
they believe their ten-year-old is capable of conducting a
conversation that will be satisfactory to even the most demanding
and sophisticated adult.  Bart begins with the observation that
Robert Frost's poem's have frequently been misunderstood.  He
tells you with just the right amount of bemusement and not too
much apparent superiority that most of the kids even in his
progressive and enriched 5th grade interpreted the poem about
mending wall to be saying "Good neighbors make good fences," when
it clearly is saying that that sentiment is primitive and impedes
communication and understanding.  He then offers the observation
that many critics don't realize that much of the fault lies with
Frost himself because his persona as a kindly and wise
white-haired old man seemed to valorize precisely the "folk
wisdom" he was in fact criticizing.  These are very impressive
observations for a ten-year-old, you think, but how do you know he
isn't just parroting what he has heard his brilliant parents say
at the dinner table?  Just how do you go about questioning Bart,
within the confines or appropriate behavior for an adult guest of
his parents, to find out if he really "understands" or has
"insight" in a "semantic" sense what he appears outwardly to have
intensional and intentional opinions on?

Well, various strategies come to mind.  You can mention other
poets who used a similar strategy.  Or used a completely different
one.  You would be looking, I think, for a kind of "encyclopedic"
quality in his answers, a collation and deployment of facts and
information that indicated a real understanding of them.  Could
you figure out in, say, a half an hour that little Bart's mind was
mediocre -- turbocharged with good instruction and support, but
fundamentaly and essentially mediocre?  I think so.  Wouldn't the
same apply to the Chinese Room , the Mathematics Room, the Group
Theory Room, and all the other rooms that have been hypothesized?
Didn't the Turing test presuppose a fairly lengthy
cross-examination?  After all, even Eliza can fool you for a few
minutes.

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


