From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!fuug!news.funet.fi!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske Thu Feb 20 15:22:17 EST 1992
Article 3882 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!Sirius.dfn.de!fauern!unido!mcsun!fuug!news.funet.fi!sunic!seunet!kullmar!pkmab!ske
>From: ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <6582@pkmab.se>
Date: 17 Feb 92 11:31:32 GMT
References: <1992Feb14.181324.16278@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb14.221800.23311@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Feb16.182943.7817@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Peridot Konsult i Mellansverige AB, Oerebro, Sweden
Lines: 17

In article <1992Feb16.182943.7817@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
 > He (and I presume Searle) would assert that that is all that is
 >necessary for the Chinese Room, since (according to both him and Searle),
 >the person in the Chinese Room is in the exact same state as a monolingual
 >English speaker hearing Hungarian.  One may want to argue about
 >the *precise* nature of "understanding", but there are certainly cases
 >in which we can agree it isn't present.

What point in the Chinese Room argument does this address? Has anyone
disputed that the man in the room does not understand Chinese? On the
other hand, what does it say about the understanding of the Room as a
whole?

-- 
Kristoffer Eriksson, Peridot Konsult AB, Hagagatan 6, S-703 40 Oerebro, Sweden
Phone: +46 19-13 03 60  !  e-mail: ske@pkmab.se
Fax:   +46 19-11 51 03  !  or ...!{uunet,mcsun}!mail.swip.net!kullmar!pkmab!ske


