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!dime!orourke Tue Jan 28 12:15:00 EST 1992
Article 2956 of comp.ai.philosophy:
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!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <42032@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 21 Jan 92 17:40:54 GMT
References: <1992Jan18.150345.15050@oracorp.com> <6031@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 19

In article <6031@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>Why is it [conversation] such good evidence [for understanding]?  
>Because it works for people?  So what?
>[...]
>I don't see any necessary connection between conversation and
>understanding. 

If the conversation were so unrestricted that you could turn it
into an interrogation of a willing subject, then I think it could
constitute as strong an indication of the existence of understanding
as is conceivable.  You could probe deeply on specific topics,
and ask a series of questions that could only be answered by
someone who truly understands the topic.  It seems to me this
would be totally convincing.  In the face of such a conversation,
you could only entertain the possibility that despite appearances,
there is no understanding, by using the word "understand" in a 
new sense, a sense that demands a particular mechanism of understanding 
with no observable consequences.


