From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:33:25 EST 1992
Article 4095 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!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.222952.2681@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <438@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb22.234830.17713@psych.toronto.edu> <446@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 22:29:52 GMT

In article <446@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:

[systems reply discussion deleted]

>Quite, and as I said before, this changes *nothing*, there are *still*
>two systems present, they just happen to both be running in the
>same hardware. (ever hear of time sharing?)
>
>The 'man' still does not understand Chinese, the 'internalized CR'
>still does or does not (whichever it is), just the same as it did before.
>Thus this does not actually adress the systems reply at all.  It simply
>now assumes that just because both systems occcupy the same body they are
>the same system - this does *not* follow.   I find this assumption, that
>having been memorized the CR magically becomes one with the man, to be
>so absurd as to be nonsense.

But the systems are *not* independent, and I am constantly amazed at the
suggestion that they are.  The Chinese "system" is parasitic on the cognitive
manipulations of the person.  This is not at all like two independent programs
running simultaneously - rather, the one is dependent on the other.  In this
sense, the system *is* in the cognitive system of the man.

- michael



