Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3891 comp.ai:6549 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcsun!ukc!tcdcs!swift.cs.tcd.ie!maths.tcd.ie!ftoomey From: ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai Subject: Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince Message-ID: <1990Apr10.102610.5376@maths.tcd.ie> Date: 10 Apr 90 10:26:10 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 Organization: Dept. of Maths, Trinity College, Dublin, Ireland. Lines: 146 In article <1990Apr8.191524.6565@cs.umn.edu> hougen@cs.umn.edu (Dean Hougen) writes: >In article <1990Apr6.144947.11473@maths.tcd.ie>, ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie > (Fergal Toomey)writes: >>In article <1990Apr5.202224.27534@caen.engin.umich.edu> >>zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy) writes: >>Perhaps I should have chosen a better example. The novice+Kasparov >>idea was originally intended to parallel the computer+programmer idea >>in computer science. If you argue that the system under consideration >>is not just the novice, but the novice *plus* Kasparov, then what can >>we say about an apparently intelligent computer program? Must we say >>that it is not the computer that is intelligent, but the computer >>*plus* its programmer? > >The fact that you present a revision of the analogy (below) indicates to >me that you do not believe that your novice+Kasparov analogy (above) to >be adequate to answer this question in the positive. Neither do I. The >fact that in the one case the novice is exactly a conduit for Kasparov >(note that he can be removed from the system without effecting >performance) should be sufficient to tell us that the analogy (above) is >fataly flawed. I believe that my original analogy was flawed in that it was too open to misinterpretation. Paul found an apparent way out my argument by saying that we must consider the Kasparov + novice system instead of the novice alone. My second analogy was supposed to demonstate that we can't do this: we *must* consider the novice alone. If we require that the Kasparov and the novice must be considered together (and this is clear, I hope, in the second example) then we are led to the conclusion that understanding is impossible for a non-human. We are forced to say, when faced with an intelligent computer, that "this computer *plus* its programmer is a system capable of understanding." I reject this view of things for the following reason: faced with a chess playing computer we do not say: "this computer plus its programmer is playing chess"; nor should we say, when faced with a computer which has been programmed to analyse and understand chess, that "this computer plus its programmer is analysing and understanding chess". We have to consider the computer (and its program) alone; similarly in the chess game, we consider the novice (plus his list) alone, and leave Kasparov out of it. >>Let me put it like this: suppose the novice >>has brain damage, so that he is incapable of understanding chess, but > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >You're cheating. "We assume that he can't understand chess but he can >play chess, therefore we know that we shouldn't give 'understanding' a >functional definition." No. My argument is as follows: I assume that the novice can't possibly understand chess. Then I show that he can play chess, using Kasparov's list. Conclusion: understand != playing. The argument does rest, however, on the assumption that it is possible to follow simple instructions without understanding anything about what you're doing. If it is not possible to construct an instruction-following, non-understanding device, then clearly the poor brain-damaged novice cannot be constructed, and so the argument falls through. I know for a fact, however, that it *is* possible to follow instructions while understanding nothing. I have done precisly this many times in my life, for example in constructing my first electronic kit. I understood nothing about electronics except how to use a soldering iron, yet the completed circuit worked. Therefore, I can rephrase my argument: It is possible to construct a thing which follows instructions yet understands nothing, therefore, It is possible to construct a thing which plays chess as well as Gary Kasparov and yet does not understand chess. >>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 (the number >>of possible board configurations is very, very high, but finite). You > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >Too high for the list to ever be created but this is a thought experiment >so we can give him this list for purposes of our investigation anyway. >But why do you feel the need to mention that it is finite? If it were infinitely long, it would clearly take an infinite length of time to produce, in which case my argument would fall through, since it would not be possible, using this method, to construct a thing capable of playing chess as well as Gary Kasparov. >>now start playing chess with the novice, as well as with one other, normal, >>average chess player. You are, of course, beaten by the novice+list system, >>but you beat the normal, average, player. You conclude that the novice+list >>system has a better understanding of the game than the normal player. You > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ >I conclude that the novice+list system has a better *understanding of how to >play the game*. I don't assume that the novice+list system has a better >understanding of all aspects of the game such as historical origins, etc. Well, I was considering only the strategy aspect. You say that the novice+list has a better understanding of this aspect than the normal player has. I think you're confusing knowledge with understanding. Certainly, all the information you need to play brilliant chess is contained in the list, but it is stored in a form that is not accessible to the novice's mind in a form that would allow him to understand it. Similarly, you could learn a lot about aerodynamics from studying aeroplanes, but that doesn't mean that aeroplanes understand aerodynamics, even though they can fly a lot better than I can. >My point is that the normal player has *no understanding* of the game, >although he can tell you why he lost. You may argue that knowing the >name of the world chess champion in 1962 is not all there is to >understanding chess; that the normal player can still have a partial >understanding of the game without being able to answer this question. >I might argue that the same is true for the novice+list system in >relation to the question that you posed to it. How did you come to >the conclusion that being able to explain why you won is *all there >is to understanding chess*? Why should I buy this? Why should I not >maintain that the novice+list system has a partial understanding of >the game (precisely that it understands how to play chess) without >being able to answer your question? My requirement that the novice explain how he won is, btw, irrelevant to the argument (I've noticed a lot of people arguing about this point). I was simply pointing out that although the behaviour of the novice gave rise to the belief that he understood chess, examination of his algorithm reveals that to accord him an "understanding" of the game would be to stretch the meaning of the word beyond permissible limits. If you imagine yourself carrying out the actions of the novice you instinctively know that you would not have an understanding of chess, you would simply be following instructions. When you want to examine another person's algorithm, the only way to do it is to ask them to explain. That's why we ask the novice to explain how he won. If the novice were a computer, of course, we could just look at his program. Immediately we realise that the novice has no understanding of chess, since we know that if we ourselves were to simply carry out instructions which tell us how to play, but do not tell us how to understand the game, then we would understand nothing. If you want a computer to understand chess, you must tell it how to understand chess. Telling it how to play good chess does not garantee an understanding. A computer programmed to play chess will not understand chess in exactly the same way as our brains, which are programmed to understand things like chess, cannot, apparently, understand "understanding" :-) Programmed to play chess, can't understand how to play chess. Programmed to understand chess, can't understand how to understand chess. Since you article is so long, I'll have to respond to the rest of it (which brings up yet more good points) in another posting. Fergal Toomey.