From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue May 12 15:49:51 EDT 1992
Article 5499 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <6692@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 May 92 22:20:30 GMT
References: <6641@skye.ed.ac.uk> <6639@skye.ed.ac.uk> <60633@aurs01.UUCP>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 48

In article <60633@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>>> daryl@oracorp.com
>> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
>>> If you wish to show that
>>> computers lack something that humans possess, it seems to me that you
>>> need to show (a) that computers lack it, and (b) that humans possess
>>> it. If you only prove (a) then you have not proved your point.
>>> [...]
>>> I don't doubt human understanding.
>>> Nobody is disputing that humans understand,
>
>> That should take care of (b).  Can we now look at the arguments
>> on (a) without further demands that we must also show (b)?
>
>I think it is obvious that "that" does NOT "take care of (b)".  The
>term "understanding" that nobody is denying to humans must be shown to
>be the same entity that "computers lack".

You'll have to ask Darly about that.  What is it he's not doubting?
Of course, he ought to be using more or less the same sense of
"understand" as used by Searle in the Chinese Room and related
arguments.

However let's take:

 (a) that computers lack it, and (b) that humans possess it.

_Whatever_ Daryl means, we can replace both instances of "it"
with the same thing.  Let's use U_d for this.

That takes care of (b): humans posess U_d.

Can we now look at arguments on (a) -- that computers lack U_d --
without further demands that we must also show (b)?

>> I see no reason to prove that humans have understanding in the sense
>> required for the Chinese Room.  And the idea that this is something we
>> ought to doubt, that we need and don't have evidence that humans can
>> understand in that sense, looks to me like nothing more than an
>> attempt to avoid having to consider the arguments against computer
>> understanding.
>
>Nonsense.  The claims are made that "computers lack X" and that "humans
>have Y".

No, the claims are that computers lack U and humans have U.

-- jd


