From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!swrinde!gatech!ncar!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose Mon Mar  9 18:33:49 EST 1992
Article 4134 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!mips!swrinde!gatech!ncar!uchinews!spssig.spss.com!markrose
>From: markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb28.173608.40150@spss.com>
Date: 28 Feb 92 17:36:08 GMT
References: <1992Feb25.183336.13258@oracorp.com> <1992Feb27.224043.4143@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: SPSS Inc.
Lines: 38
Nntp-Posting-Host: spssrs7.spss.com

In article <1992Feb27.224043.4143@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Feb25.183336.13258@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>
>>Searle's response to the Systems Reply proves one thing, mainly that
>>Searle doesn't understand what a system is. He seems to be assuming
>>that there is a one-to-one correspondence between "systems" and
>>"physical objects" (of course, this mistake was encouraged by whoever
>>made the original Systems Reply when he talked about "slips of paper,
>>etc.") What Searle's thought experiment shows is that, assuming the
>>Systems Reply is correct, a human brain can simultaneously implement
>>more than one system. (I suppose that this gets back to the "Multiple
>>Personality Disorder" thread.)
>
>OK, so what counts as a system?  Is my calculus understanding located in
>a separate system ("Well, gosh, *I* don't understand this differential, but
>my *calculus* system does?").  What kind of separation do you need?     

One possible reply to this is, yes, your knowledge of calculus is a
separate subsystem, to the extent that it is not integrated with the rest
of your knowledge.  If you could integrate and differentiate like a demon,
but hadn't the slightest idea what these operations were used for, or
even what their graphic analogues were, then your calculus knowledge
would be pretty separate from your other mental processing, and it could
even be said that you didn't "understand calculus."

The counter to the systems reply goes to great pains to reproduce this
situation.  The man who memorizes the Chinese Room algorithm has not 
integrated the Chinese knowledge in the algorithm into his mental life.
By analogy with the calculus example, we might say that he can "do Chinese" 
but not that he "understands Chinese."

Again, there is no justification for equating the man with this Chinese-
understanding subsystem which has been kept separate from his (previous)
mental life.  The counter-reply therefore has nothing to say on whether
the Chinese subsystem, rather than the man, understands Chinese.

[Replies by e-mail would be appreciated, as I am going on vacation.]
--markrose@spss.com


