Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!snorkelwacker!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucsd!usc!samsung!munnari.oz.au!bruce!frank
From: frank@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU (Frank Breen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Hayes vs. Searle
Message-ID: <2411@bruce.cs.monash.OZ.AU>
Date: 13 Jun 90 13:30:30 GMT
References: <36194@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>
Organization: Monash Uni. Computer Science, Australia
Lines: 27

From article <36194@shemp.CS.UCLA.EDU>, by martin@oahu.cs.ucla.edu (david l. martin):
> 
> In the case of the atomic model of solidity, we all have some sort of notion
> (depending on how much physics we had) of just how it manages to explain
> solidity.  I mean, it really does succeed in being an explanation.  In the
> case of the use of symbol manipulation, it _doesn't_ explain the things
> that we'd like to have explained (things like "intelligence" and 
> "understanding"), and isn't that just what Searle's point is?
> 
Perhaps the problem is that no-one can agree exactly what understanding
is.  How can we argue about whether or not something has a quality that
we can't even define.  If Searle is just saying we don't really know
what understanding is why not just say so.  From the bits of this
discussion that I've read it seems that Searle hasn't really worked
out exactly what understanding is and is searching for an answer.

In the end I think it is irrelevant - we should just define something
that understands as something that appears to understand.  Then we
can say that the man in the chinese room does not understand chinese
(if you took him out of the room) but the man together with the books
does understand.  After all I could understand even a cobol program
but only with a decent cobol manual.  Without such a book I doubt
if I could work it out.  There's nothing mysterious or paradoxical
here.  Eventually I would end up learning cobol but the man in the
room would also eventually learn Chinese - it would just take longer.

Frank Breen