From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!think.com!mips!mips!smsc.sony.com!markc Mon Mar  9 18:35:33 EST 1992
Article 4295 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!haven.umd.edu!darwin.sura.net!jvnc.net!yale.edu!think.com!mips!mips!smsc.sony.com!markc
>From: markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar5.232122.6354@smsc.sony.com>
Date: 5 Mar 92 23:21:22 GMT
References: <1992Feb29.162020.9271@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar3.025214.26880@smsc.sony.com> <1992Mar3.201743.20894@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Sony Microsystems Corp, San Jose, CA
Lines: 118

In article <1992Mar3.201743.20894@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Mar3.025214.26880@smsc.sony.com> markc@smsc.sony.com (Mark Corscadden) writes:
>>
>>Can you imagine memorizing a large look-up table of actions and then
>>carrying out the actions called for by the table without ever having
>>any personal understanding of the purpose behind the actions?  Even
>>when virtually anyone in a position to watch your table-driven actions
>>from, say, an outside perspective unavailable to you, would have no problem
>>understanding their purpose?  I have no trouble imagining such a state
>>of affairs.  
>
>Neither do I. And it's clear from your description that the person engaging
>in the activities would not UNDERSTAND what they were doing, whereas a
>native Chinese speaker does.

Yes, as I intended the person in my simple scenario does not understand.
Since you are contrasting the *understanding* of this person with the
*understanding* of a native Chinese speaker, you are missing my argument.

>And, as you yourself say, NOT UNDERSTAND, unlike the native Chinese speaker.

Yes, as I myself said.

>And, thus, once again, HE DOESN'T UNDERSTAND.

Yes, again.  We are failing to communicate, and if any blame is to
be placed, please place it on me for failing to be explicit when I
first presented my argument.

As before, suppose you have a game, Xgame, and a table which gives a move
for each possible situation in Xgame.  Also, suppose you have a person
Gameperson who has memorized the table but does not understand its
meaning.  As in the rebuttal to the systems argument, suppose you also
have a person Chineseperson who doesn't *speak* Chinese but has memorized
an immense Chinese-conversation lookup table and can use it to shuffle
Chinese symbols.

I define the following two properties:

GAME(X)    == "X is a person, and X can play a good game of Xgame"
CHINESE(X) == "X is a person, and X *understands* Chinese"

    (minor aside)
    By the way, I think the original failure to communicate involved the
    following property:

        STRAWMAN(X) == "X is a person, and X *understands* how to play Xgame"

    As you pointed out, I myself asserted that Gameperson does not
    have this property (so to speak) and hopefully it will become
    apparent that I never claimed this to be the case.  In repeatedly
    asserting this same thing back to me, I think you were only thrashing
    a strawman.
    (end aside)

The following are facts, though someone may want to dispute them:

*)   Gameperson possesses the property GAME, as a matter of simple fact.

*)   If asked, Gameperson will assert that, as far as he knows, he does
     *not* have the property GAME.

*)   In all of our ordinary experience, a person who possesses the property
     GAME would *know* that they possessed this property.

*)   It is precisely the artifice of blindly memorizing tables which has
     created the anomaly represented by Gameperson.

I have produced a clear example of a property P, namely the property
GAME, which satisfies the following:

1)   In all of our ordinary experience, a person who possesses property P
     would *know* that they possessed this property.

2)   The artifice of blindly memorizing tables can anomalistically produce
     a person who *has* property P, but who does not know he has it and will
     say so, in contradiction to our ordinary expectations.

I have produced a property GAME which satisfies both (1) and (2) above,
and yet the possibility that the property CHINESE satisfies both (1) and
(2) above is flatly dismissed in the "rebuttal" to the systems reply, without
justification.  In fact, (1) is taken to mean that asserting the possibility
of (2) is pure obscuratism.  I have demonstrated, using the property GAME,
that (1) and (2) are compatible, and in fact they can be *expected* to be
compatible *precisely* when the artifice of blindly memorizing tables is
being invoked!

I do not, personally, believe that the usual immense Chinese-conversation
lookup table understands Chinese.  I do not believe that a man who has
memorized such a table understands Chinese, either.  My reasons are
irrelevant to this discussion.

The definition of the property GAME does not involve the concept of
understanding; the definition of the property CHINESE does.  This does
not change the fact that a demonstration that (1) and (2) cannot both
hold for the property CHINESE has not been given, and that such a
demonstration is clearly necessary due to the existence of properties
like GAME.  What is the difference between GAME and CHINESE which
makes 1&2 true for GAME but makes 1&2 "absurd" for CHINESE?  To say
that the difference is that one involves the concept of understanding
and the other doesn't begs the question!

Conditions (1) and (2) *can* both hold of the property CHINESE under the
right circumstances, but my own personal belief is that the lookup table
scenario is not an example (i.e. the man/memorized-table system still does
not understand Chinese).  If asked, I can produce a simple example in which
both (1) and (2) hold for the property CHINESE.

The so-called rebuttal to the systems reply depends on the "fact" that
any man who understands Chinese must, obviously, assert that he
understands Chinese unless he is lying.  I've shown that there are
no grounds for this "fact" and therefore the rebuttal is invalid.  An
invalid argument can happen to have a valid conclusion; this doesn't
make it any more valid.

Mark Corscadden
markc@smsc.sony.com
work: (408)944-4086


