Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!rutgers!cmcl2!yale!engelson From: engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Engelson) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <51123@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Date: 19 Feb 89 21:35:09 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@netnews.upenn.edu> Sender: root@yale.UUCP Reply-To: engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Engelson) Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 23 In-reply-to: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) I have a simple question for those denying (Searle + rules) understanding of Chinese: What is your definition of "understanding" that allows Searle understanding of English, but does not allow (Searle + rules) understanding of Chinese? It seems that to demonstrate or refute the position of understanding being demonstrable purely through I/O behavior, one must have an effective definition of understanding. By effective I mean one that does not beg the question, i.e. by defining understanding to be symbol-processing, or conversely, to be that which humans do. Any takers? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Sean Philip Engelson, Gradual Student Who is he that desires life, Yale Department of Computer Science Wishing many happy days? Box 2158 Yale Station Curb your tongue from evil, New Haven, CT 06520 And your lips from speaking (203) 432-1239 falsehood. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones. -- Albert Einstein