From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcbig!gerety Tue Jan 28 12:17:43 EST 1992
Article 3144 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!sdd.hp.com!hplabs!hpfcso!hpfcbig!gerety
>From: gerety@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM (Colin Gerety)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Evidence that would falsify strong AI. (Re: Cargo Cult Science)
Message-ID: <14730001@hpfcbig.SDE.HP.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 92 19:05:43 GMT
References: <1992Jan22.212846.24969@aio.jsc.nasa.gov>
Organization: HP SESD, Fort Collins, CO
Lines: 28


> Jeff Dalton
> ...
> since it's clear that some of the demands for definitions of,
> say, "understanding", won't be satisfied by anything less than an
> operational test.

> What I find strange in all this is that anyone should find it
> a mystery what "understand Chinese" means.  Can these people
> really no distinguish between such things as reading a book
> written in a language they know and reading one in a language
> they don't?  Do they really think they can't answer this
> question until someone tells them what "know" means?

  I have little trouble figuring out the extent to which I understand
Chinese.  The chinese room leads to the question "How can I tell whether
you understand Chinese?"

  These are, of course, completely different.  To decide whether YOU
understand Chinese, I do need an operational test.

  I was quite amused when the subject of bees came up and some who argued
that there is no "understanding" in the Chinese room (with which they could
converse) supported the postion that bees (who share nothing with us other
than simple neurology) communicate through symbols which refer to the
real world.

Colin Gerety


