From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Mon Mar  9 18:33:45 EST 1992
Article 4128 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <44092@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 28 Feb 92 14:26:26 GMT
Article-I.D.: dime.44092
References: <438@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb22.234830.17713@psych.toronto.edu> <446@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Feb27.222952.2681@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 22

In article <1992Feb27.222952.2681@psych.toronto.edu> 
	michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

>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.

	This is certainly true, but it does not follow (at least
directly) that the cognitive system of the man must be aware of
everything in the Chinese-understanding subsystem.  There are
many capabilities of our brains of which we have little awareness.
It seems therefore that to counter Hoftstadter's claim that asking 
the man is not asking the system, requires an argument more
sophisticated than saying that the system is in the man.  Yes,
that's true.  But why must the man's awareness of understanding
be the same as the system's understanding?
	And remember that we are not talking about "a man" -- we
are talking about a man whose mental powers (both speed and capacity)
far exceed our own.  So whatever argument you use cannot be based
narrowly on human capabilities.


