Xref: utzoo talk.philosophy.misc:3902 comp.ai:6566 Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!tektronix!percy!parsely!psueea!eecs!erich From: erich@eecs.cs.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn) Newsgroups: talk.philosophy.misc,comp.ai Subject: related to (Re: Why the Chinese Room doesn't convince) Message-ID: <2643@psueea.UUCP> Date: 11 Apr 90 01:59:54 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> Sender: news@psueea.UUCP Reply-To: erich@cs.pdx.edu (Erich Boleyn) Organization: Portland State University, Portland, OR Lines: 33 In article <1990Apr3.162019.27598@maths.tcd.ie> ftoomey@maths.tcd.ie (Fergal Toomey) writes: >It seems to me that "understanding" is a property of the algorithm >(or non-algorithmic procedure, if you believe humans are non-algorithmic) >you use. Exactly what it is seems impossible to pin down. It seems to >incorporate some kind of meta-analysis of the problem you're solving, >which allows to find solutions relatively quickly. Thoughts, anyone? I would say that "understanding" something is not by not by exact demonstration, but by assimilation of these concepts into your ability to accomplish other tasks (or just relating knowledge X to knowledge Y). Would we say someone understood what we said if they could repeat it verbatim, or oven paraphrase? No, we would ask them the implications or related methods or especially an anology (which is a tranformation of the knowledge into another system!). For instance, when one understands a theorem in mathematics is when one can prove it (at least intuitively, i.e. know how it works!), not just use it! We say the grand master knows the game because he can make extensions in the middle of a game if he encounters something that his general method does not cover. His ability to extend the game is in a way the understanding, because (in the case of chess) he "understands" the rules well enough to know what to add to them when necessary. A computer with a coded algorithm for a task (or even a human with instructions), does not qualify under this idea of understanding. I would say that the ability to assimilate, transform, and relate knowledge is necessary for understanding (good understanding, at least ;-) ___--Erich S. Boleyn--___ CSNET/INTERNET: erich@cs.pdx.edu {Portland State University} ARPANET: erich%cs.pdx.edu@relay.cs.net "A year spent in BITNET: a0eb@psuorvm.bitnet artificial intelligence is enough to make one believe in God"