From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!cs!rdouglas Thu Jan 16 17:22:01 EST 1992
Article 2746 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1862 comp.ai.philosophy:2746
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!garbo.ucc.umass.edu!m2c!wpi.WPI.EDU!cs!rdouglas
>From: rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (***** Rob Douglas ****)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Behavior in the Bart Room
Message-ID: <1992Jan15.190843.1636@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Date: 15 Jan 92 19:08:43 GMT
References: <X39JeB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Sender: news@wpi.WPI.EDU (News)
Reply-To: rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (***** Rob Douglas ****)
Organization: Worcester Polytechnic Institute
Lines: 60
Nntp-Posting-Host: maxine.wpi.edu

In article <X39JeB1w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>, rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
|> 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.
|> 
|> 
|> 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.
|> 

(long story line deleted, summary: twin gets programmed to try to fool you into
believing he is a prodigy.)

|>  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.
|> 

On understanding:

1)  I alone can decide whether or not I understand, and what it is that I do understand.  (This has generally been agreed upon by everyone submitting to this newsgroup, I believe (understand).)

2)  I have no guaranteed way to determine if another person (thing,conscious being, etc.) understands something I am trying to explain or discuss.  However, I can be convinced that another understands if, in the course of our discussion, my own understand
ing of the subject is (in my opinion) reinforced or refuted.  In other words, if my understanding has increased.

It has already been assumed that I can tell whether or not I can understand.
It has been pointed out that one can be shown that he believed something which he did not understand, in the past, and yet called it understanding.  I maintain that realizing you did not understand in the past does not mean you did not understand somethin
g, you just understood it differently than you do now.  People's understandings change.

My point is this:  if you meet someone with whom you hold a conversation, and the conversation allows the person (thing,conscious being, etc.) to pass #2 above, then, at that time, you must accredit it with understanding, until a conversation which does n
ot pass #2 is found.  (By the way, you will notice that this is similar to the Turing test.  For some reason, people seem to believe that the Turing test is not a complete enough test to test for understanding.  I suggest you think about that.  To be









to relate ideas to other ideas and change them around syntactically in order to explain what they mean would really require a very complicated system.  This is well beyond the scope of any Eliza-like program.)

Understanding cannot be universally determined.  It is a fleeting thing.  But as long as someone can allow us to increase our own understanding, why would you care if he were attributed understanding.  It is a relative judgment, which may be viewed differ
ently from different points-of-view.


On a slightly different note: I seem to remember having seen an argument that claimed to prove that the human mind was more powerful than a Turing machine.  It essentially stated that a human being can solve the halting problem, and we all know that a Tur
ing machine cannot, so a human is more powerful.  This is not true. In order to solve the halting problem, the solver has to be guaranteed to give an answer to every yes/no question.  I know of at least one question which no person is yet guaranteed 









wer correctly yes or no.  Is the problem <IS P = NP?> solvable?  No person can tell you the answer.  Therefore, humans cannot solve the halting problem.


ROB

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~  Rob Douglas                         |  email:                       ~ 
~  AI Research Group                   |       rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu     ~
~  Worcester Polytechnic Institute     |  Fuller Labs Room 239         ~
~  Computer Science Department         |  (508) 831-5005               ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


