From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Mon Mar  9 18:35:45 EST 1992
Article 4310 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.153907.16051@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Mar4.143142.12977@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Mar4.205355.26542@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar5.141951.10188@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Mar5.232256.26281@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 15:39:07 GMT

In article <1992Mar5.232256.26281@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Mar5.141951.10188@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar4.205355.26542@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>>In article <1992Mar4.143142.12977@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>>>>Things are not always as simple as you make them to appear. Consider some
>>>>autistic people who, while appearing rather uninteligent, can nevertheless
>>>>perform amazing arithmetic calculations in their heads. They are unable to
>>>>explain how they do it, but no one has taught them how to do these very long
>>>>multiplications, divisions etc. So, although consciously not aware of how they
>>>>are doing it, they must have some subconscious understanding of aritnmethic.
>>>
>>>I fail to see at all what this has to do with the original discussion, as 
>>>we were talking about *explicit* understanding, and *inherent* meaning
>>>of symbols.
>>>
>>Many people, you including, object to "System's Reply" on the basis that the
>>man himself does not understand Chinese and cannot explain in English what do
>>squigles mean. The example I've given above shows that a part of human brain
>>can understand something even if his/her consciuos part cannot explain it.
>>Don't you think it is relevent to some objections to "System's Reply"?
>
>Do the examples you cite show an understanding of the material, or merely
>the ability to apply mechanical rules?  I would be much more impressed if
>an autistic person could respond to someone in Chinese...:-)
>
If you read carefully what I have written above, you'd notice that the skills
I am describing cannot be considered a purely mechanical application of rules
since these people were not taught how to do this complicated calculations. If
soeone, after being shown how to do simple multiplications, is after a while
able to multiply two six-digit numbers, wouldn't it be fair to say that he/she
understands multiplication?
Concerning languages, someone already pointed out that young children, brought
up in two-language  families, are often totally unaware which language they are
speaking. This doesn't only apply to children. It has happend to me number of
times, in situations when dealing at the same time with people speaking 
different languages, that I was unaware of the language I was speaking - 
baffled look on the other person's face was the only thing which made me realize
that I have to switch to more appropriate language.
It has also happend to me several times that I was working on a difficult
problem and got stuck. So I went to do something else (like make myself 
something to eat). And then suddenly I had the solution to the problem and,
honestly I did not know how I arrived at it. 
You obviously can have intelligent processes in the brain without participation
of consciousness.

>- michael
>
>


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


