From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor Tue Mar 24 09:57:07 EST 1992
Article 4581 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992Mar18.225506.8852@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Mar12.001918.2564@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6423@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar18.072634.9259@ccu.umanitoba.ca> <6431@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Wed, 18 Mar 1992 22:55:06 GMT

In article <6431@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Mar18.072634.9259@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
...
>>Perhaps we can agree on this point, but I really need to know
>>what is that *thing* that is required for understanding?????
>
>That is, unless I can tell you how human understanding works
>in detail, machines must have it too?  I'm sorry, but it just
>doesn't follow.
>
You are right, it doesn't follow. However, if you want to claim that a machine
does not have an understanding, you should at least provide a criterion which
you are using. If a machine is producing meaningful answers, it is satisfying
a criterion you yourself are using judging if other people understand (or are
you using some other criterion? I've asked you this question several times, but
you have never replied). If this is unsatisfactory for you, then you should say
what is missing, i.e. what other criterion should a machine satisfy for you to
accept that it has understanding.
What you are saying is (correct me if I am wrong):
To show that a machine does not have understanding, I do not have to know how
to produce undertanding. It is enought to show that the way the machine works
cannot possibly produce understanding.
Am I right?
Inconclusivness of the discussion around CR (which is an attempt at using the
reasoning above) shows that such an approach is ineffective - in absence of
a criterion how to recognize understanding (other then TT) we are stuck with
some people claiming 'system understands' and others saying 'you can't be 
serious'. I can see only three ways out of it:
1. Stick with an only criterion we have, i.e. TT.
2. Produce another criterion.
3. Stop discussing the issue till 2. is satisfied.
I have an impression that you are suggesting approach 3. and I am ready to agree

......
>(BTW, it should be obvious that more than behavior is involved.
>Do you just behave, or do you have thoughts too?)
>
A running machine has a lot of processes going on inside. Why can't they be
clasified as thoughts?
....
>-- jd


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


