From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose Mon Mar  9 18:33:13 EST 1992
Article 4077 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.180818.37011@spss.com>
Date: 27 Feb 92 18:08:18 GMT
Article-I.D.: spss.1992Feb27.180818.37011
References: <1992Feb26.165452.7666@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb26.190407.5123@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Feb27.025740.8034@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 18
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1992Feb27.025740.8034@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu 
(ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>I would suggest that unless the system can translate the language from
>its original tongue to that of chinese or be capable of generating its
>own originial statements free of context from the ones being presented
>to it, the system has altogether failed to understand anything at all.

I think you have a point: a system lacking this kind of creative power
lacks something that contributes to our conception of intelligence.

However, this is orthogonal to the discussion of the Chinese Room.  
Searle presents the Chinese Room as representing _any_ algorithm, not just
the story-understanding one that seemed to originally suggest it.

To put it another way, if the algorithm were enhanced along the lines
you suggest, so that it generated its own remarks and told its own stories
in addition to replying to those of others, I doubt that the Searly crowd
would concede it any more intelligence than they do now.


