From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Thu Feb 20 15:21:06 EST 1992
Article 3767 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!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding (Re: Evidence that would falsify strong AI.
Message-ID: <1992Feb15.163339.3827@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <6185@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb14.181324.16278@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb14.221800.23311@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Date: Sat, 15 Feb 1992 16:33:39 GMT

In article <1992Feb14.221800.23311@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <1992Feb14.181324.16278@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>
>>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..."
>>
>
>Good showmanship! Very handy at public lectures (or colloquia), but contributes
>little to appreciating that 'understanding' has many facets.
>
Perhaps, but it goes a long way in showing that it has at least one
facet -- it's an existence proof of sorts. And that generally what is
needed in doing battle with AI-minded cognitive scientists over the
Chinese Room.

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


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


