From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Mon May 25 14:05:03 EDT 1992
Article 5615 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Message-ID: <1992May13.153627.20690@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992May5.195616.28038@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6684@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May12.155026.18797@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6698@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 13 May 1992 15:36:27 GMT

In article <6698@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992May12.155026.18797@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>
>You wrote "deciding if a computer has a mind is the other minds problem".
>
>By "no" I meant that it is false that deciding if a computer has a
>mind is the other minds problem.
>
>I did not mean that there is no connection between the two.
I did not mean :"deciding if a computer has a mind is The Other Minds Problem"
I thought it was obvious that this meant that the two are intrinsically
connected. It is only fair that you have problems understanding what I mean
since I often have problems understanding what you mean :-).

>As for definitions, I have not objected to people _offering_
>definitions.  What I've objected to is people _demanding_ definitions.
>The simple fact is that in the definition game one side can sit there
>forever demanding definitions and picking holes in them without ever
>getting on to anything else.  Why should I want to play that game?
>
Is this the way you conduct discussions? Sit back and pick holes at what other
people say? I agree that it is useless, so let me propose the following:
one person supplies a definition and if the other doesn't like it, he 
proposes his own (a _better_ one). Does it sound fair ?
I am really puzzled why you object to the following train of thought:
Terms like 'understanding' (or thought) have acquired their meaning, which
most of us shere intuitively, as applied to human beings. Hence (by definition?)
no one really doubts that humans understand (or think). However when we want
to extend usage of these terms beyond human context, most of this intuitive
content looses ground. Demanding that they have the same (inutitive) meaning
as applied to humans has a potential to generate a lot of useless arguing
(as witnessed on this list), since different people may make an extrapolation
differently. That is why it is important to define what it means 'computer
understanding'. If this is objectionable to you, we do not have to define 
'human understanding' (we can stay with our common intuitive understanding), but
need to know what we mean by understanding as applied to, say, computers
(or some aliens). Computers are build so differently from human brains and work
in such a different way that I find it necessary to specify precisely what we
are discussion.
Having said this, I'd propose that we define the term 'computer understands'
as equivalent to 'it passes TT'. And please, be generous, don't ask me to 
specify TT exactly, hopefully everyone (?) understands inuitively what I mean:
some succession of question and satisfactory answers. Of course, it is not
abspolute, there will be varying degree of certainity etc.
Now if you find it lacking, please propose something better. Or are you going to
resort to the tactic you have objected yourself - sitting back and picking holesin my definition?

>>So what is the argumentation going to based on? Some vague, unspoken notion 
>>of understanding no one is allowed to try to make more concrete? 
>
>Try to make it more concrete.  Go ahead.  I won't object.
>
I've just done it above. The ball is in your court.
>
>>For an argument to be convincing it has to be based on some specifics
>>most people would agree on. What are they in this case? No surprise
>>so many people find Searle's argument vacuous. It is like watching a
>>magician - in the first moment he manages to pull wool over your eyes
>>- you are impressed and convinced that he can violate laws of physics. 
>>After a short reflection you see however that there were so many vague
>>moments that he could have done anything.
>
>Where, exactly, does he do this?  (Have you read the Reith Lectures
>(aka _Minds, Brains, and programs_) yet, btw?)
>
I hope the copy as reprinted in 'The Mind's I' counts, does it?
Stuffing the whole CR into the hapless persons mind is a typical tric.
The use of undefined terms like 'understanding', 'semantics' etc. - another.
For the reasons outlined above, he should have been more careful. I am not even
sure of his use of the term 'syntax'. Normally I'd expect it to be equivalent
to 'grammatical rules'. He talks however about  referring to 'a database of 
information about restaurants etc.'. This means that the program would reject
statements, which would be correct as far as English grammar goes, but 
inconsistent with the info in the said database. This does not sound as pure
syntax.

>>It is impossible to point out flaws in someone's arguments if he refuses to 
>>define the terms he is using. Every time he can get out of trouble by
>>insisting that you do not understand what he means. 
>
>So where does Searle do this?  In what way does he exploint the
>"vagueness" in terms?
>
For instance by claiming that computers are incapapble of semantics, without
saying what it is.

In your other postings, which I seem to have lost, you claimed that there is 
a lot of things computers do without thought, whereas the same things require
thought in humans. I've challanged you to give an example AND explain what 
evidence you have that computers do this without thought. You replied with
and example but without saying what makes you to conclude that a computer can
do this task without thought, challanging me instead to show that a computer 
needs thought to do the task. 
Look, YOU have claimed that a computer does not require thought to do 'many'
things, so YOU should say why you think (:-)) so.
>
>-- jd


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


