Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.ultranet.com!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Searle's Chinese Room refuted by Society of Mind
Message-ID: <DAn2zn.AB8@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <YLIKOSKI.95Jun6203133@gamma.hut.fi> <1995Jun20.221454.14807@galileo.cc.rochester.edu> <DAJFCn.L1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <1995Jun21.233628.8306@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 18:50:11 GMT
Lines: 96

In article <1995Jun21.233628.8306@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>,
Greg Stevens <stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu> wrote:
>pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
...............
>
>>My point was that each person "understands" it _differently_. What does it
>>mean to understand "better" is a better of definition of "better" in this
>>context, I did not use this word. If I said that an eunuch does not "really"
>>understand sex (or a healthy doctor - cancer) what I meant (and I am surprised 
>>that it does not seem to get through) was that there are aspects of sex which
>>will always be beyond a grasp of an eunuch, whereas these aspects are 
>>accessible to most other people. 
>
>Then no one "really" understands anything, because there will always be
>SOME aspect of any given concept which is beyond a person's grasp, no
>matter who that person is, even if that aspect is "how the person next
>door understands it."  My point has been merely to point out that the
>notion of "really" understanding relies on a kind of elitism or assumption
>that on kind of understanding is "better" than another.  Either you
>say that the eunuch doesn't "really" understand sex because of not
>being able to have it, and conclude that NO ONE "really" understands sex
>because for EVERYONE "there are aspects of sex which will always be
>beyond [their] grasp."  It will always be beyond your grasp what it
>is like to have sex with me, and it will always be beyond my grasp
>what it is like to have sex with Herbert Hoover -- so neither of us
>REALLY understands sex.  Or, on the other hand, you say that the eunuch
>merely has a "different" grasp of what sex is.  This is the view I
>espouse.  I merely objected to the use of the term "really."
>
Fine, you obviously do not like my use of the word "really". However, I think
that it is unreasonable to claim that everyone's understanding of a given term
is just as good as anyone else's, your objections to elitism notwithstanding.
There is a reason why some people are teachers and others students, don't you
think so? You do not deny that there is a value in experience? 
...........
>>In priciple you are right, but are you claiming that a person with a rich 
>>sex life understand sex just 'differently' from a (young) person who just 
>>had sex for the first time? Or perhaps you would agree that using the word 
>>"better" (understanding) has some justification in this case?
>
>No, I'm afraid I would only be able to agree that they understood sex
>"differently."  Saying one is "better" seems to imply some ordinality
>along a single dimension, where somehow there is some kind of objective
>(or at least not observer-dependent) "complete" understanding of
>sex which people approach as they "better" understand it.  
>
Well, there is a vague ordinality to understanding, I think you got carried
away claiming that the notion of "better" understanding is unjustified. Yes,
some people understand things _better_ than other people, not just differently,
even though this is being questioned sometimes (like during China's Cultural
Revolution). If your car stops and you can't make it run and your car mechanic
will help, this is because he understands cars _better_.

>>... I agree that the best way to rate the degree of understanding is by
>>observing how well your description fits what happens. What made you to 
>>expect otherwise?
>
>I think it was the notion that certain kinds of experience are necessary
>for "really" understanding certain things.   If you really take such
>an operationalized view of understanding, how could you maintain that
>a doctor could not possibly "really understand" cancer, just because of
>not having cancer?  Having or not having cancer does not fit into your
>notion of understanding as "observing how well your description fits
>what happens"... or does it?
>
There is obviously a misunderstanding here. My point was that not having an 
experience of suffering cancer the doctor might not be able to predict 
behavior of the cancer patient in some circumstances. The same  for eunuch
and sex.

>>When I was talking about "really" understanding etc. I was trying to stress
>>that how we behave in a response to a given term depends on our experiences
>>with situations relating to the term and people with more (and more varied)
>>experiences will be able to behave in such situations more effectively (I hope
>>I do not have to add few more lines explaining 'effectively', do I) which
>>can be described by saying that they "understand better".
>
>You do not have to add more lines explaining "effectively." You merely
>have to acknowledge that different things may be equally effective for
>different people, and I'd say that the knowledge a eunuch has of sex
>is completely and utterly effective for someone in the eunuch's position.
>
Not necesserily, since he deals with people who have physical experiences of
sex and hence may have a different in some respects understanding of the term.
On some occasions this differences in understanding may lead to problems in
communication.

>Greg Stevens
>stevens@prodigal.psych.rochester.edu
>
Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
