From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Thu Feb 20 15:20:53 EST 1992
Article 3744 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Definition of understanding (Re: Evidence that would falsify strong AI.
Message-ID: <1992Feb14.181324.16278@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Jan30.172057.7114@oracorp.com> <6185@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 18:13:24 GMT

With reference to the exchange Jeff Dalton has been having with folks
regarding what "understanding" is:   

When Steven Harnad came to the University of Toronto to give a colloquium
on *his* solution to the Chinese Room, he noted, "Everyone thinks that
defining understanding is so difficult.  Well, here..." at which point
he spouted something entirely incomprehensible in a non-English language.
"There," he said, "that was Hungarian.  Did you understand that?  If not,
then you know what understanding involves..."

- michael



