From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!pacbell.com!att!ucunix.san.uc.edu!millerjx Tue Nov 19 11:10:06 EST 1991
Article 1316 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!pacbell.com!att!ucunix.san.uc.edu!millerjx
>From: millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu (Justin W. Miller)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room Variant
Keywords: room,variant,chinese,numbers,math,arithmetic
Message-ID: <1991Nov14.182646.2273@ucunix.san.uc.edu>
Date: 14 Nov 91 18:26:46 GMT
References: <1991Nov8.170856.21527@psych.toronto.edu> <1991Nov12.131428.4850@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> <1991Nov14.163630.20597@spss.com>
Organization: Univ. of Cincinnati
Lines: 18

In article <1991Nov14.163630.20597@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark Rosenfelder) writes:
>In article <1991Nov12.131428.4850@osceola.cs.ucf.edu> clarke@next1 (Thomas Clarke) writes:
>>That is, the bare rules of computation plus any finite set of additional 
>>usage/correspondence rules are not sufficient for an understanding of number. 
>
>What is sufficient, then?  An infinite set of rules?  Or, if something else
>entirely is needed, what is it?

+What is hard to understand about the concept of numbers to any form of
+intelligence? The whole basis of all rational arithmetic is based on the
+traditional 'If you have one apple and get another, how many do you now
+have?' example. This is, of course, a simplification, but it is representative
+of all other arithmetic functions. If, however, we are arguing 'THE HOLY
+MEANING OF NUMBERS-- OR, QUANTUM ARITHMETIC' then my above statement does not
+pertain to the discussion and, incidentally, THE discussion does not pertain
+to this universe in general.
+--justin   (millerjx@ucunix.san.uc.edu)
 


