From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Mon Mar  9 18:33:33 EST 1992
Article 4108 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!ubc-cs!unixg.ubc.ca!kakwa.ucs.ualberta.ca!access.usask.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.004323.11389@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
References: <1992Feb27.025740.8034@a.cs.okstate.edu> <1992Feb27.182302.5525@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <1992Feb27.195843.8254@a.cs.okstate.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1992 00:43:23 GMT
Lines: 57

In article <1992Feb27.195843.8254@a.cs.okstate.edu> onstott@a.cs.okstate.edu (ONSTOTT CHARLES OR) writes:
>In article <1992Feb27.182302.5525@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>>>
>>NOTE: The system's language *IS* Chinese!!!
>>Repeat after me slowly "The system speaks Chinese, not English!"
>  Ok, then you are changing the system from the one that Searle is talking
>about because in Searle's system the man in the room speaks english.
>In any event, repeat after me slowly, "IT Doesn't Matter, because this
>makes a special case"  That is to say, using a systems argument, if a

   I am disapointed, after I told you to repeat slowly, tsk tsk.. :-)
We are not talking of any particular component of the system, we
are talking of *THE* system. This included the person in the room
and all of the books, symbols, connections (how does he know which
book to look up the correct symbols, etc..) The person can be
replaced by a computer (something obviously non-intelligent, or
even a giant tinkertoy set with an electric motor (to drive it!))
   Now, as you where saying, which neuron in your brain is responsible
for your understanding? (or even which set of neurons?)

>>
>>There is no requirement for any intelligent person to be a causal
>>agent! I am aware of several mathematical savants that would
>>never initiate an investigation, but when asked a question
>>and they answer it, there is no doubt in any persons mind
>>that there is *some* kind of vast intelligence at work!
>>
>  But, Anton, we aren't talking about intelligence, we are talking about
>understanding.  Unless, of course, you hold them to be the same thing.
>
I think that we are talking of intelligence, or can you show me how
you can understand something without intelligence? A dolphin has
understanding of some symbols, eg. you clap and it jumps through a 
hoop, does this show understanding, does it show intelligence?

When someone understands something, it is always an understanding
about that thing. The understanding is never divorced from the
object being understood (eg. I understand something, but I forgot
what I understand. ;^) In effect, when we talk of understanding
you are always talking of something intelligent. (If I did not
think that you are intelligent I would not be trying to make
you understand!)

If you want to argue that consciousness is different from understanding
then you do have a point, but again I would argue that it is
nothing special, and could be duplicated with a machine. (I think
that I have covered some of this before.)

>BCnya,
>  Charles O. Onstott, III
>

-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


