From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!pauld Mon Mar  9 18:35:47 EST 1992
Article 4313 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!batcomputer!cornell!uw-beaver!pauld
>From: pauld@cs.washington.edu (Paul Barton-Davis)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.172308.15113@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
Sender: news@beaver.cs.washington.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U. of Washington, Seattle
References: <1992Mar4.210627.28060@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar5.001144.28065@beaver.cs.washington.edu> <1992Mar5.203720.4209@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 92 17:23:08 GMT

In article <1992Mar5.203720.4209@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>Searle's contribution is in how such a thing can *not* exist, namely, by
>the purely syntactic manipulation of symbols.

I can't disagree with that. However, Searle went a little further with
the Chinese room by allowing the questioner to ask questions of the
form "Do you ... ?" I don't know of anyone who has claimed that purely
syntactic manipulation of a given set of symbols could ever provide an
answer to questions of this form. What does syntax say you should do
with queries where the referrent is not external ?

>If you want to postulate a specialize mechanism that "clearly has to have
>some semantic abilities," then go ahead, as long as you explain *where*
>the semantics comes from...

I'd instead suggest that the debate over syntax vs. semantics is
useless.  The categories it establishes are too rigid. I'd rather just
say: manipulating symbols according to some (possibly stochastic)
algorithm doesn't constitute understanding, but representing such
manipulations with other symbol manipulations can. The man in the CR
doesn't represent his own shuffling; external observers as well as the
mythical "system's eye view" do.

If Searle's "memorizer" man was to represent his own shuffling the way
that your or I represent our own brain activity, I strongly believe he
would answer, with conviction, "yes" when asked if he understood
Chinese. If you could see "understand" as a term that you apply as a
description rather than as an experience, whether or not the object is
"you" or someone else, this might be clearer.

Once more, how anything at all can be experienced is beyond us all
right now, Dennett sadly included.

-- paul

-- 
Computer Science Laboratory	  "truth is out of style" - MC 900ft Jesus
University of Washington 		<pauld@cs.washington.edu>


