From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!dkuug!diku!kurt Sun Dec  1 13:06:20 EST 1991
Article 1719 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:1719 sci.philosophy.tech:1200
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!yale.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!dkuug!diku!kurt
>From: kurt@diku.dk (Kurt M. Alonso)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: On Denoting (was re: Arguments against Machine Intelligence)
Keywords: denotation, sense, communication
Message-ID: <1991Nov28.132948.4646@odin.diku.dk>
Date: 28 Nov 91 13:29:48 GMT
References: <43772@mimsy.umd.edu> <1991Nov27.111048.4933@odin.diku.dk> <1991Nov27.115032.5957@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: kurt@rimfaxe.diku.dk
Organization: Department of Computer Science, U of Copenhagen
Lines: 112

zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>In article <1991Nov27.111048.4933@odin.diku.dk> 
>kurt@diku.dk (Kurt M. Alonso) writes:

>>kohout@cs.umd.edu (Robert Kohout) writes:

[lots of lines deleted]

>KA:
>>Now, just to clarify things I will give my definition of understanding:
>>"understanding is the phenomenon we experience when upon exposure to
>>an isolated mental construction we find that this construction is
>>coherent with previous knowledge we had. Such previous knowledge may
>>consist of intuitively true 'facts' or of other mental constructions".

>I define understanding as "appreciation of Swiss cheese".  Given that no
>computer is capable of this feat, it follows that AI is wholly bogus.

>On a more serious note, you might consider Aristotle's tripartite
>conception of *dianoia* (understanding as discursive, sillogistic
>reasoning), subdivided into *episteme* (knowledge for its own sake),
>*techne* (knowledge for production), and *phronesis* (knowledge for
>conduct) -- see Anal. Post. I.89b and II.100b.  Subsequently you might
>ponder the general Platonic conception of *noesis* (intellection), as
>presented in the Republic 509e--11d, placing *dianoia* in its context.

>Alternatively, you might turn to the Moderns like "old Kant", with his
>active faculty of understanding, which is the source of concepts (the first
>Critique, A51/B75), the laws of which relate *a priori* to objects (ibid,
>A57/B81).  Whatever you do, don't limit yourself to a spuriously produced
>definition that presupposes, among other things, a coherence theory of
>truth. 

Yes, it is true that my definition is simplistic, but then again, I was
only trying to cover the common usage of the word, as in 'academic 
understanding', expecting that such a definition would still be usable. 
However, I do not see why understanding could not possibly be grounded on 
coherence (meant as 'discursive coherence' rather than 'logical coherence').

>KA:
>>That understanding according to this definition requires self-consciousness
>>should be clear. Also, it should be clear that the subject experiencing
>>understanding is intentionally putting forward a desire of giving
>>meaning to the mental construction. 

>I don't understand your claim of putting forward a desire of giving meaning
>to the mental construction.  When Aristotle makes his famous claim that all
>men by nature desire to know, he certainly doesn't imply that this desire
>is implicit in knowledge.  Why can't we understand apathetically?

How could we possibly?

>KA:
>>Now, what some people object against the strong AI thesis is that
>>the formalism of Turing machines does not allow to model the humane
>>semantic intentionality involved in understanding, mainly because
>>the relation subject-object present in meaning-giving per se trascends
>>the subject, and consequently, no theory of meaning can be formulated
>>such that a TM can implement it. 

>This looks like an adequate summary.

>KA:
>>This critique is clearly issued from strong philosophical premisses,
>>namely that in assigning semantics, man is in some sense trascending
>>himself, approaching ontologically far entities.

>...only inasmuch as we succeed in denoting.  Do you think the name `Venus'
>designates the Morning Star, or the bright spot in your fielf of vision
>just before sunrise?

Let me adventure the following:
By assigning sematical contents to an arbitrary sign we are 
(1) isolating the lexeme and its meaning from every discourse of which
it may be part, and
(2) glueing all these meanings into one single meaning
Now, I suspect that these two operations tend the ontological trap
that constitutes the nucleus of this thread of discussion. Signs are
indeed generated in a discourse (as well as their meanings) so, how can we 
with ontical safety isolate them in such a manner? 

>KA:
>>The point we should now elucidate is whether by 'knowing' or giving
>>meaning to entities man is in fact trascending himself, and in that
>>case, whether this implies that no well defined formalism in
>>a logical sense can describe such a semantics.

>Good point, but a small correction: `well-defined' is not synonymous with
>`finite'.  Do you thing that we are intrinsically incapable of transcending
>our separate phenomenal microcosms through the use of language?

Correction granted.

Kurt



>'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
>`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
>: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
>: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
>: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
>:                                                             so     :
>: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
>: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
>: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139                                     :
>: (617) 661-8151                                                     :
>: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
>:                                                                    :
>'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
>`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'


