From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc Tue Jan 21 09:26:38 EST 1992
Article 2828 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca sci.philosophy.tech:1885 comp.ai.philosophy:2828
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!wupost!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.tech,comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Behavior in the Bart Room (repost)
Message-ID: <o78oeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 17 Jan 92 14:45:35 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.180819.13756@wpi.WPI.EDU>
Lines: 110

rdouglas@cs.wpi.edu (***** Rob Douglas ****) writes:
> |> 
> |> 1)  I alone can decide whether or not I understand, and what it is that I 
> |> understand.  (This has generally been agreed upon by everyone submitting t
> |> this newsgroup, I believe (understand).)
> |> 
> |> 2)  I have no guaranteed way to determine if another person (thing,conscio
> |> being, etc.) understands something I am trying to explain or discuss. 
> |> However, I can be convinced that another understands if, in the course of 
> |> 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 understan
> 
> |> It has been pointed out that one can be shown that he believed something w
> |> 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 y
> |> did not understand somethin|> g, you just understood it differently than y
> |> do now.  People's understandings change.
> |> 
> |> My point is this:  if you meet someone with whom you hold a conversation, 
> |> the conversation allows the person (thing,conscious being, etc.) to pass #
> |> above, then, at that time, you must accredit it with understanding, until 
> |> conversation which does n|> ot pass #2 is found.  (By the way, you will no
> |> 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 able
> |> to relate ideas to other ideas and change them around syntactically in ord
> |> 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.  
> |> as long as someone can allow us to increase our own understanding, why wou
> |> you care if he were attributed understanding.  It is a relative judgment,
> |> which may be viewed differ|> ently from different points-of-view.

Consider 4 Turing-test-like paradigms, as represented by TV
sitcoms: 1.) _Small Wonder_: an electronics genius, but nerdy
husband and father, builds an intelligent robot in the form of a
little girl.  2.) _Mork and Mindy_: a reasonably intelligent
humanoid alien, who is considered a bit weird even on his home
planet, is sent to Earth, from which he most report his
anthropological observations to his superiors. 3.) _Perfect
strangers_: a reasonably intelligent human being from a foreign
country comes to America to stay with his American-born cousin.
4.) _The Beverly Hillbillies_, a family from a distinctly rural
cultural milieu strikes it rich in oil and moves to a cosmopolitan
urban center.

What these paradigms have in common is that much of the humor
consists of misunderstanding by the main characters in these
sitcoms of the customs and idioms taken for granted by the
"normal" inhabitants of the new environment.  The same joke works
in all 4 contexts.  The native speaker, Vickie's "father," Mindy,
Balki's cousin, Mr. Drysdale, gives a simple directive, which we,
as native speakers of the dominant culture, readily understand:
"Take out the trash," or "Put the turkey in the oven," or "Dress
the turkey," or "Crack the books," or "Put your best foot
forward," or "Get on the stick," or "Pull up your socks," or "You
can say that again," etc. etc., which the main character
interprets in a "literal" fashion, taking the trash to the door
and dumping it onto the front porch, or putting the live turkey in
the oven, or putting clothes on the turkey, etc., etc.

At various times and for various reasons these characters have to
"pass" as "normal" members of the community.  There was even the
gender thing from the original Turing test in one sitcom, the one
that launched Tom Hanks' career, where for some stupid reason he
and another advertising man, Peter Scolari I think, were living in
a hotel for women only and Tom had to convince the other residents
that he was a women.  The problem of the writers of these shows is
exactly the opposite of a theorist considering the "meaning" of
"learning" and "understanding."  Sh/e, the writer, wants to keep
the humor going, but the "common sense" of the viewer tells h/er
that sooner or later the out-of-place character will "learn the
ropes" and become indistinguishable from the normal inhabitants of
the new environment.  The _Beverly Hillbillies_ writers solved
that problem by making Jethro so stupid that he can't understand,
even in principle, what the normal inhabitants are doing, although
he is the quickest to adopt the most obvious and superficial
characteristics of the new environment, using his uncle's oil
money to become "a sophisticated, international playboy," although
he fools no one for any length of time (i.e., fails the
Turing-like test at the first question).

Of all of these characters the robot "girl" is the relevant one.
Phenomenally "her" show is exactly like the others.  She follows
directives literally, but seems to learn from experience.  When
she is forced to attend school she must pass in a variety of new
situations, some of which are only incidental to her robot-status
(for example her great strength and the fact that she doesn't eat
-- these make her different from humans, but not in a "cognitive"
sense).  Over the course of the show's development, Vickie does
learn, so that finally we have an "experienced" robot which can
pass as a human little girl and the show ends because it has used
up all possible "situations."  At precisely that time we can ask
the key question: does she have "semantics" and "understanding" in
the sense which you described understanding as something which is
always there but always increasing, becoming more finely
differentiated?  And is this a matter of "semantics?"  When she is
as assimilated and as indistinguishable from the "normal"
inhabitants as Mork or Balki or Jed (since Jethro by definition
will never attain that), should we declare that she has the "same"
understanding?  I think that is a way to look at the question.

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


