From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott Mon Mar  9 18:33:18 EST 1992
Article 4083 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!convex!constellation!a.cs.okstate.edu!onstott
>From: onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
References: <1992Feb26.190407.5123@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> <1992Feb27.025740.8034@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb27.083159.1102@reed.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.194514.6934@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Organization: Oklahoma State University, Computer Science, Stillwater
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 92 19:45:14 GMT

In article <1992Feb27.083159.1102@reed.edu> zeke@reed.edu (Zeke Koch) writes:
>In article <1992Feb27.025740.8034@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb26.190407.5123@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>>>
>>  Either I have missed something entirely, or there is something severly
>>lacking in this entire discussion of the Chinese Room understanding
>>Chinese.  The argumentation has been one sided thus far as it seems
>>to hold the following:
>>
>>  1.) Any system which can take in inputs and produce properly corresponding
>>  outputs is considered a chinese-speaking system.
>>
>>  2.) The system actually "understands" chinese because the real chinese
>>  speaker "understands" the outputs.  (Also, this already brings about
>>  some implicit difference between the system and the real chinese speaker).
>>
>>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 fail to understand why this step is necessary, can we translate from our
>neuronal firings to English?  
>
  Yes, if we are to believe everything that english speaking neruphysiologists
have to say.  That is, their attempt to describe the events could, in fact,
be considered a translation into english(in the sense that you are using it).
For argumentation along this line, see Richard Rorty, "Philosophy and the
Mirror of Science" under the section entitled "The Antipodeans."

  However, this only holds if we can find a parallel between neurons firing
and things being said or actions being taken.  If that parallel doesn't
exist, which is likely and why we need research in that field, then no
it could not be translated at all--in this case your retort is meaningless.
On the other hand, if there is a parallel then a description of language
firing neurons could, in fact, be translated into english.  This is 
analogous to a person who is capable of looking at the state of a computer
and declaring such and such about the computer in that state.  

  In any event, I would not get to caught up in this because it really
doesn't have much to do with what I am talking about.  What I am talking
about is the abilty to relate the words used in one language to another 
and that unless this can be done; no understanding exists.
]
  The outputs of such a system must be capable of creatively expressing
a statement free of context from another agent; or else it can not be
considered to be understanding.

  One final commment on your question above about translating neurons
firing in to english--if we could do this; it could be said that we
actually understand those neruons.  Understanding, however, does not
rest in an individual neuron; but rather as a result of a bunch of neurons
firing--that is to say, in agreement with Searle, that understanding is
an effect of not a part of.

BCnya,
  Charles O. Onstott, III

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charles O. Onstott, III                  P.O. Box 2386
Undergraduate in Philosophy              Stillwater, Ok  74076
Oklahoma State University                onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu


"The most abstract system of philosophy is, in its method and purpose, 
nothing more than an extremely ingenious combination of natural sounds."
                                              -- Carl G. Jung
-----------------------------------------------------------------------


