Xref: utzoo comp.ai:3191 talk.religion.misc:10492
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!osu-cis!att!ihlpb!arm
From: arm@ihlpb.ATT.COM (Macalalad)
Newsgroups: comp.ai,talk.religion.misc
Subject: Re: Elementary AI Philosophy
Keywords: Understanding and Comprehension, Reality and Modeling
Message-ID: <9465@ihlpb.ATT.COM>
Date: 24 Jan 89 19:47:29 GMT
References: <18464@santra.UUCP> <1241@arctic.nprdc.arpa> <904@ubu.warwick.UUCP> <9423@ihlpb.ATT.COM> <43763@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: arm@ihlpb.UUCP (55528-Macalalad,A.R.)
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories - Naperville, Illinois
Lines: 74

I tried mailing this reply, but it bounced back.  So....

In article <43763@linus.UUCP> Barry Kort writes:
>There *can* be "something inside the computer that `understands'",
>but that something need not be thought of as a "homunculus".
>
>If we substitute the word "comprehend" for "understand", we have
>a better chance of seeing how a computer can have an idea of how
>things work out there in the real world.  The verb "to comprehend"
>means "to capture with".  In my mind, and in the mind of my
>computer, I construct models which replicate the structure and
>behavior of real-world objects.  I capture (comprehend) reality
>with such models.

Barry, I'm not sure what this has to do with homunculi.  Who is
doing the comprehending here, the model or you?  If I build a model
railroad, does the model railroad then have some comprehension of
railroads?

If what you're trying to say is that you construct the computer system
such that it builds its own models of reality, then I would answer
that the computer system as a whole, and not its models, is
comprehending.

>As to intelligence, that step follows easily after I have a working
>model.  I can now do "thought experiments" on the model to find
>out what will happen if I diddle the controls on the model, or
>if I perturb the operating environment in which the model is
>embedded.  I call this "cognition".  (Some people call it
>model-based reasoning, or modal logic.)

Most people call it the scientific method. (:-)  Again, where does
the cognition lie, in you or the model?

>While we are on the point of capturing ideas with models, let us
>take note of two other captivating terms.  The word, "phenomenal"
>means "to capture with the senses."  Contrast that well-known
>word with its lesser-known counterpart, "noumenal", which means
>"to capture with thought."  Theories are the product of noumenal
>processes.

As I understand it, noumenal refers to the thing-in-itself, as
opposed to phenomenal, which refers to the thing-perceived.  Kant
argued that the noumena is unknowable through rational thought, i.e.
we can learn only about things as they are perceived, and nothing
about things-in-themselves.  If by saying that theories are the
product of noumenal thought, you imply that I can never fully
understand your theory, then you may be right. (:-)

>--Barry Kort

Barry, I have long admired your thoughtful and thought-provoking
discussion on the net.  Please let me know if I have completely
missed your point (which is very possible).

My point (just in case you missed it the first time) was to argue
that Searle's man inside the computer was essentially a homunculus.
Further, when Searle assumes that the computer understands Chinese
only if the man inside the computer understands Chinese, he implies
that we must have a similar little man inside our heads in order for
us to understand.  Finally, since most of us agree that none of us
need a little man inside our head in order to understand, Searle's
assumption that a computer _does_ can easily be seen as fallacious.

As to my comment that the computer system as a whole understands, I
meant that understanding was an emergent property of the computer
system.  (Sort of like the way enclosure is an emergent property
of a box.  Does the property of enclosure lie within the top? the
bottom? the sides?  It emerges from the way the top, bottom and
sides are put together to form a box.)

Something to think about....

-Alex