From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!pindor Mon Mar  9 18:35:18 EST 1992
Article 4272 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.141951.10188@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Mar2.190455.17079@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Mar2.214012.22715@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar4.143142.12977@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Mar4.205355.26542@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Thu, 5 Mar 1992 14:19:51 GMT
Lines: 45

In article <1992Mar4.205355.26542@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>In article <1992Mar4.143142.12977@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>In article <1992Mar2.214012.22715@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>>>refers to "greatest common divisors" and the like.
>>>
>>[example about potential energy calculations deleted]
>>>
>>>BTW, this is a good example of how interpretation can play a large role
>>>in the attribution of "understanding" to a program.  If an electronics
>>>engineer had a program he used to calculate the PE of a capacitor, he or she
>>>would probably say that the program *actually did calculate electrostatic 
>>>energy*.  But it doesn't.  It merely submits the inputs to certain syntactic
>>>rules, and provides outputs.  The *exact same program* could be used to
>>>calculate the potential energy in a spring system.  The program itself
>>>does not *refer* to capacitors - it doesn't "refer" to anything.  It is
>>>only our *interpretation* of the inputs and outputs which give meaning.
>>>
>>Things are not always as simple as you make them to appear. Consider some
>>autistic people who, while appearing rather uninteligent, can nevertheless
>>perform amazing arithmetic calculations in their heads. They are unable to
>>explain how they do it, but no one has taught them how to do these very long
>>multiplications, divisions etc. So, although consciously not aware of how they
>>are doing it, they must have some subconscious understanding of aritnmethic.
>
>I fail to see at all what this has to do with the original discussion, as 
>we were talking about *explicit* understanding, and *inherent* meaning
>of symbols.
>
Many people, you including, object to "System's Reply" on the basis that the
man himself does not understand Chinese and cannot explain in English what do
squigles mean. The example I've given above shows that a part of human brain
can understand something even if his/her consciuos part cannot explain it.
Don't you think it is relevent to some objections to "System's Reply"?

>- michael
>
>
>


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


