Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!sharkey!atanasoff!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!harnad From: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: letter to THE NEW YORK REVIEW concerning AI Summary: On Facing the Obvious Keywords: Searle, Chinese room, Minsky Message-ID: Date: 18 Feb 89 23:16:41 GMT References: <7471@venera.isi.edu> <7551@venera.isi.edu> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 29 smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) of USC-Information Sciences Institute wrote: " Remember, all I want to argue is that there is nothing OBVIOUS about that " difference X [between understanding and not understanding a language]... " [e.g., compare]: `Where is my gracious Lord of Canterbury?' [and] " `Howbeit... amply to imbar their crooked titles Usurp'd from you and " your progenitors.' [How would]... a ten-year-old American child, who " `obviously' (to Searle at least) understands English... react to these " two sentences? As pointed out in prior iterations, DEGREE of understanding, or MISunderstanding, or a FALSE POSITIVE sense of understanding are not at issue in Searle's Chinese Room. What's at issue is whether there's ANY understanding AT ALL (of Chinese) going on in there. How much a 10-year-old might or might not understand of middle English is simply beside the point. The 10-year-old and Searle understand SOME English, but NO Chinese. That's all there is to it. If you find continuous text too ambiguous, try isolated words in English and Chinese. Searle will still understand (many of) the former and NONE of the latter. In turning away from the obvious you are simply misconstruing Searle's argument. -- Stevan Harnad INTERNET: harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu harnad@princeton.uucp BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet CSNET: harnad%princeton.edu@relay.cs.net (609)-921-7771