From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum Tue Mar 24 09:56:38 EST 1992
Article 4537 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!ccu.umanitoba.ca!zirdum
>From: zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.064723.6873@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Date: 18 Mar 92 06:47:23 GMT
References: <1992Mar11.201637.21875@psych.toronto.edu> <44765@dime.cs.umass.edu> <6422@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Organization: University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Manitoba, Canada
Lines: 55

In article <6422@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <44765@dime.cs.umass.edu> orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke) writes:
>>	It seems to me that the way in which a program manipulates
>>its symbols shows that it has attached some type of meaning to them:
>>
>>  >>BTW, I still haven't seen a satisfactory answer to the point that
>>  >>the Room manipulates meaningless symbols (ie, treats them syntactically)
>>  >>without any way to attach meaning to them.  But maybe I've just
>>  >>missed it in all the noise.
>
>Or, to go back to your approach to "understanding X" as being able to
>answer questions about X.  Now, the Geometry Room, for example, can
>answer questions aboue geometry (even if the person in the Room hasn't
>a clue).  But is that because this system understands geometry or
>because the programmers (or the mathematicians they consulted)
>understand geometry?
>
I am capable of programming a computer program, that when run,
is able to manipulate mathematics that is beyond my level.
So clearly there can exist a program that functions in ways
that its designers never could have forseen. If we follow
your argument above to its relevent conclusions then nobody
understands mathematics, it is always the teachers that they
consulted with that understand mathematics!

>In the Chinese Room case, maybe the programmers understand Chinese,
>but how does "the system" manage to do it?

Have you considered that the programmers of the Chinese room
have no need to understand Chinese, unless you want to say
that teachers are also programmers.

I do not think that you have a clear understanding
of what it means to understand! For example, Subjectively
you understand X! Now what does that mean?
>
>But the situation is a bit different when we come to the "syntax
>isn't enough for semantics" arguments.  The person in the Room is
>performing some manipulations that depend only on "sytax" such
>as the shapes of the squiggles.  And the person doesn't understand
>what the symbols mean.  How is it that the system can do any better?
>
If we are to go in that direction then I must argue that
syntax is the symbols, semantics is the actual manipulation
of the syntax. After all, the CR is not merely a collection of
symbols, it also encompasses a manipulation of those symbols
- that cannot be reduced to mere syntax! (however you cut it!)
>-- jd


-- 
*****************************************************************
*   AZ    -- zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca                            *
*     " The first hundred years are the hardest! " - W. Mizner  *
*****************************************************************


