From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Thu Feb 20 15:21:44 EST 1992
Article 3830 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 1992 15:38:33 GMT
Lines: 20

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..."

In my opinion, Harnad was being silly. There is a common core of
meaning to the word "understand", which is that lack of competence in
a language implies lack of understanding. This is the case with my
lack of understanding of Hungarian (or Chinese). This common core of
meaning does not suffice to answer questions such as "does the Chinese
Room understand?"

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


