From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!samsung!uunet!mcsun!unido!uniol!tpki.toppoint.de!elrond!freitag Tue Nov 19 11:10:07 EST 1991
Article 1318 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!mips!samsung!uunet!mcsun!unido!uniol!tpki.toppoint.de!elrond!freitag
>From: freitag@elrond.toppoint.de (Claus Schoenleber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room Variant
Keywords: ai philosophy searle expert system
Message-ID: <HkFeBB1w164w@elrond.toppoint.de>
Date: 14 Nov 91 11:10:41 GMT
References: <1991Nov12.125157.11162@aisb.ed.ac.uk> <11615@star.cs.vu.nl>
Organization: Verlag Claus Schoenleber, Kiel
Lines: 66

dmo@cs.vu.nl (Osinga Douwe M) writes:

> I do have other ideas. I agree that this is the way children look at
> multiplication. But as time goes by and the >understanding< of numbers
> and their behaviour grows, the child will reach a point where he
> understands what he/she is doing. There is a difference in knowing
> that something works and understanding that something works.
> 
> 	Douwe.

I must confess, I have problems with that term "understanding". Is it really
understanding or has the child heard it long enough to believe it?
Try following experiment with yourself: Ask a question about a subject
("Why is ..."). Then try answering. Then ask again after the answer.
After a few questions you come to that point where you have to say
"Because 'you' told me/I learned that" or similar. "Understanding" means
(in my eyes) a long _enough_distance_ to that answer.

Learning has to do with generating new names for complex associations.
E.g. a group is a set M with an operation + and some axioms. Then you
use that new name for other, "higher definitions". But you used
"lower" names (i.e. set, operation, axiom) to define the "base name",
like "group".

With those "logical algorithms" in our brain we do that every day when
we see/hear/feel/smell new things and try to "understand" them.

It has to do something with the "Glasperlenspiel" from Hermann Hesse,
I think and in my eyes the meaning of "understanding" is not that important
or has not that distance to "believe".

Now you can get into philosophical discussion about "consciousness" and
"computers/animals vs humans", but they happen beside that discussion (grin!)

But maybe there is really more, so any idea that helps me understanding
"understanding"?

cam@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:

> [some lines deleted]...
> So, did these teachers understand arithmetic? Did they understand how to
> do English money sums? Or were they just blindly following rules with no
> understanding, like the Chinese Room?

They've learned first to calculate with decimal numbers and the new system
didn't fit in their old manner of thinking. When someone mentioned 
"money system" it suddenly did fit in their old system.
They didn't got used to the new system yet.

BTW, this shows that even teachers are not able everytime to make the
transfer from abstract problems to practical given (and known) examples,
though they require it from their students. So one can say: those teachers
didn't understand arithmetic and they were indeed blindly following rules
like in the Chinese Room.

Claus.


-----------------------------------------------------------------
Claus Schoenleber		freitag@elrond.toppoint.de
Metzstr. 54			...!uniol!tpki!elrond!freitag
2300 Kiel 1		     (This line intentionally left blank)
Germany				+49 431 18863
=================================================================
        "Never give a sucker an even break" (W.C.Fields)
=================================================================


