Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang,alt.cyberspace,alt.internet,alt.net-scandal,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Eliza (was Re: Are there non-humans lurking on Internet/Usenet?)
Message-ID: <D3qvLB.vy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <D3oxrJ.DHu@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <3hb12k$1le@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbD3pB6w.94K@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 1995 18:05:35 GMT
Lines: 60
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.nat-lang:2843 comp.ai:27291 comp.ai.philosophy:25376

In article <jqbD3pB6w.94K@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>In article <3hb12k$1le@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>In <D3oxrJ.DHu@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>
>>>It's still sometimes difficult to convince people who "ought to
>>>know better" (a.g. AI phd students) that Eliza does not have "some"
>>>understanding.  Indeed, I'm pretty sure that the people in comp.ai.phil
>>>can come up with a number of arguments to support that view (ie, that
>>>Eliza has some understanding).
>
>Why it difficult to do this convincing?  

I don't know.

>Why can people in c.a.p come up with arguments of this sort?  
>Are they fools?  Are they in the grip of an ideology?

Perhaps it's because they think philosophical disputes can be
resolved by looking in dictionaries.

>>I would have difficulty coming up with arguments that Eliza has
>>some understanding.  Or at least I would have difficulty doing
>>so with a straight face.
>>
>>>                                Whether they can come up with better
>>>arguements against the view is less clear.
>
>An interesting bit of innuendo, Jeff.  Perhaps you could move up to a higher
>plane and simply give us your best argument.

For what?  That it's less clear that people in comp.ai.phil
can come up with better arguments against the view that Eliza
has some understanding?  Well, so far we have one person
saying (quite reasonably in my view) "it is so obvious that
there is no understanding, I cannot easily comprehend what it
is that I am supposed to be arguing against", and we have
one person arguing that Eliza does have some understanding.

>>If asked to argue against Eliza understanding, I would be
>>nonplussed.  It is so obvious that there is no understanding, I
>>cannot easily comprehend what it is that I am supposed to be arguing
>>against.
>
>Given this definition of understanding from Random House 2nd ed.:
> 	
>	knowledge of or familiarity with a particular thing; skill in dealing
>	with or handling something
>
>I would say that Eliza displays *some* understanding.  

Well, there's one argument from comp.ai.phil in support of Eliza
having some understanding.

>Perhaps if you or Jeff
>could offer your definitions of the word, any disagreement over the issue
>could be resolved.

It'll just turn into arguments about the definitions.

-- jeff
