Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3881 comp.ai:6533 Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!umn-d-ub!cs.umn.edu!hougen From: hougen@cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince Summary: The ability to explain is to understand something else. Keywords: functional definitions, understanding, explanation Message-ID: <1990Apr8.194925.17551@cs.umn.edu> Date: 8 Apr 90 19:49:25 GMT References: <23100@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Mar19.153959.6113@sjuphil.uucp> <0541@sheol.UUCP> <1990Mar26.155415.21756@sjuphil.uucp> <0556@sheol.UUCP> <1990Apr3.162019.27598@maths.tcd.ie> <1990Apr5.202224.27534@caen.en <1990Apr6.14494 Organization: University of Minnesota, Minneapolis - CSCI Dept. Lines: 61 In article <7cn102fg9ahA01@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com>, kp@uts.amdahl.com (Ken Presting) writes: >In article <1990Apr6.144947.11473@maths.tcd.ie> ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal >Toomey) writes: >>Let me put it like this: suppose the novice >>has brain damage, so that he is incapable of understanding chess, but >>he is capable of carrying out simple instructions. He is also capable >>of speaking English fluently. He is given a long list of instructions >>from Gary Kasparov telling him exactly what move to make in every >>board situation that can possibly arise during a chess game . . . [stuff deleted] >The brain-damaged novice with the list is perhaps more likely to say: >"I won becouse I got these instructions from Gary Kasparov. Cost me >The novice's explanation could be quite informative, and even rational, >but (by hypothesis) it could not mention much about *chess*, its rules, >possible strategies, et. al. >The everyday test for understanding of a subject is to ask for an >explanation. This is a practical, functional, empirical procedure. ^^^^^^^^^^ So you are arguing directly against Fergal's point which was that understanding should *not* be defined by functional behavior? Also, note that being an everyday test carries no weight. If you go to a math instructor and tell him that the reason you did bad on your exam was that you were distracted by a personal crisis, were ill, etc. she is likely (if she gives you a break at all) to give you a retest, *not* necessarily ask you what you did wrong on the first test. So what? Does that make simple observation of a system's chess playing the right procedure to determine its understanding? [stuff deleted] >The criterion for "being able to play chess" is winning games, or at least >playing without breaking the rules too often. The criterion for >understanding chess is explaining games, or at least not being >dumbfounded before them. The criterion for understanding how to apply chess strategy is winning games, or ... The criterion for understanding how to formulate chess strategy is explaining games, or ... Again, you are arguing against Fregal's point (as was he, btw) but saying you are trying to back him up. Functional behavior looks like the way to go on this understanding thing, no? >I think it's possible to give a more precise account of understanding, >but all I've tried to do here is to show that "understanding" is NOT >some bizarre philosopher's daydream, but an everyday useful concept. >Especially useful for AI! True. It is useful to look at functional behavior. Or are you trying to say something else? >Ken Presting Dean Hougen -- "It only makes me laugh." - Oingo Boingo