Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang,alt.cyberspace,alt.internet,alt.net-scandal,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!uunet!pipex!bt!btnet!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: <D3srEx.C88@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: <3hc1uf$53l@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbD3r784.KE4@netcom.com> <3he94f$jgp@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 18:30:33 GMT
Lines: 63
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.nat-lang:2864 comp.ai:27352 comp.ai.philosophy:25432

In article <3he94f$jgp@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In <jqbD3r784.KE4@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>In article <3hc1uf$53l@mp.cs.niu.edu>, Neil Rickert <rickert@cs.niu.edu> wrote:
>>>In <jqbD3pB6w.94K@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:
>
>>>>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.  Perhaps if
>>>>you or Jeff could offer your definitions of the word, any disagreement
>>>>over the issue could be resolved.
>
>>>This
>>>one is somewhat question begging, given that "knowledge" and
>>>"familiarity" are not easy to define either.  Skill is a measure of
>>>understanding, although short of a definition.  I suppose that
>>>understanding has two meanings.  The skill/knowledge/familiarity is
>>>more-or-less what we mean when we ascribe understanding to someone.
>
>>If one is non-randomly successful at something, it is reasonable to say
>>that one is skilled.  Why is Eliza not skilled at eliciting personal
>>commentary (from the sorts of people that Weizenbaum has success with)?
>>Can you give an answer that doesn't include anthropomorphic bias?
>
>You have well described why "understanding" is so slippery. 

This discussion shows well one of the reasons it can be difficult to
convince someone that Eliza has no understanding: anything someone
says on the subject can be treated as ill-defined, thus changing
the discussion from one about whether Eliza understands to a fruitless
dispute about what various words mean.  I have never seen any ai.phil
discussion resolved in that way.

Initially, one might think that the question of what "understand" means
could just as well be used against claims that Eliza does have some
understanding as against claims that Eliza has none, but that turns
out not to be the case.  It's fairly easy to produce definitions
of "understanding" that refer only to externally observable behavior
and then to argue that Eliza has enough of the right sorts of
behavior to count as having some understanding.  And even without such
a definition it's possible to insist that all acceptable definitions
must provide publically observable criteria.

This makes things difficult for anyone who thinks understanding is
not just a matter of publically observable criteria or who thinks
that we don't yet know what the right criteria are.  If they provide
any definition that's of the demanded sort, it will have to be one
they don't actually think is right and they will already have
surrendered most of the ground that's in dispute.  If they provide
any other kind of definition, it can be attacked as vacuous.
And if they refuse to play the definition game, they can be attacked
in even stronger terms.  So these guys can be held off forever.  
All useful discussion stops right there, and no further progress
can be made.

The same thing can be done with any other word we might try in
place of "understanding".  "Consciousness", "intelligence",
and so forth all suffer the same fate.

-- jd
