From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Wed Feb 26 12:53:51 EST 1992
Article 3948 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
Message-ID: <1992Feb24.044654.12505@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <438@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb22.234830.17713@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb23.071810.16573@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: Mon, 24 Feb 1992 04:46:54 GMT

In article <1992Feb23.071810.16573@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>The systems reply says: it's not the man in the room that understands
>>but the system as a whole: the man, the room, the slips of paper, the
>>rule books, etc.
>>
>>Searle responds: fine. Put the whole system in the man. Have him memorize
>>the symbols, the rules, etc., and get rid of the room. Have him walk about
>>like a sort of Chinese deaf-mute who can only communicate via written     
>>messages. Now you've got the system in the man and can discover whether the
>>system understands any bettter than did the man-as-part-of-the-system.
>>You ask him -- the system -- whether it understands Chinese.
>>He still replies "in his native language" that he doesn't understand a
>>word of Chinese.
>>
>
>It seems to me that the man cannot respond in any way but to say "Yes I understand
>Chinese!" He has all the requirements, He can do anything that a native Chinese
>speaker can. There is no need for him to assume that native Chinese speakers do
>it in a different way. In short, I have serious doubts that someone can memorize
>rules for interacting with Chinese speakers and still not understand.

I think you've lost track of the fact that all the rules the man is using
are purely syntactic. All the Chinese symbols he uses are still purely
formal and uninterpreted. Thus, what he is missing is their *meaning*.
And without their meaning, surely he cannot be said to understand them.

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


