From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor Thu Feb 20 15:20:55 EST 1992
Article 3748 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding (Re: Evidence that would falsify strong AI.
Message-ID: <1992Feb14.221800.23311@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Jan30.172057.7114@oracorp.com> <6185@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb14.181324.16278@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1992 22:18:00 GMT

In article <1992Feb14.181324.16278@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>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
>

Good showmanship! Very handy at public lectures (or colloquia), but contributes
little to appreciating that 'understanding' has many facets.

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


