Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!husc6!yale!engelson From: engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Engelson) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <51157@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Date: 20 Feb 89 14:31:28 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <51123@yale-celray.yale.UUCP> Sender: root@yale.UUCP Reply-To: engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Engelson) Organization: Computer Science, Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158 Lines: 72 In-reply-to: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) In article , harnad@elbereth (Stevan Harnad) writes: > > >engelson@cs.yale.edu (Sean Engelson) of Computer Science, >Yale University, New Haven, CT 06520-2158 asks: > >" for those denying (Searle + rules) understanding of Chinese: What is >" your ["effective"] definition of "understanding"... one that does not >" beg the question... by defining understanding to be >" symbol-processing or... that which humans do. > >Is anyone reading or understanding these postings? Or thinking about >what this is all about? As I've indicated repeatedly, this is NOT a >definitional issue! All I have to do is POINT to positive and negative >instances! What is your criterion for determining which is which? I'm not denying that you have one, I'd just like to have it out in the open and explicit. >Before you went to graduate school in computer science at >Yale, if I had said to you, "Look, you understand English, you don't >understand Chinese, correct?" You would have said, "Sure," and you >would have been right. Nobody would have had to define understanding, >"effectively" or otherwise; and no questions would have been begged. >In fact, nobody COULD have defined understanding, then or now, because >we still don't know what it is, functionally speaking; finding out what >it is and how it works is going to be cognitive science's empirical >mission for some time to come. And I can equally well POINT to Searle running his rules for Chinese, and say to (him + rules) in Chinese, "Look, you understand Chinese, don't you?" and I'd expect to get back the answer (in Chinese) "Yes". So why deny the system of (Searle + rules) understanding of Chinese? After all, I can just POINT to it, can't I? >But we can certainly still POINT to understanding , when it's there; >and say it isn't there, when it isn't. Now you're in graduate school at >Yale, and you aren't so sure about that. Are you sure you're wiser >than before? Well, for all external intents and purposes, (Searle + rules) understands Chinese. As I think you are saying, since "plain" Searle does not understand Chinese, (Searle + rules) does not. Why not? What's the difference? >Understanding is what is "+" of Searle (and you) with respect to >English, and "-" with respect to Searle (and you, and the computer >running the program he's executing) with respect to Chinese. Lacking >any other evidence for "+" on the computer's behalf, that makes the score >on understanding: Searle 1, computer 0. In other words, you are DEFINING understanding to be that which Searle has with respect to English, and not that which (Searle + rules) has with respect to Chinese. OK, given that distinction, tell me either how I can distinguish between the two in a Turing-test fashion, or what it is about Searle that allows him to understand English which (Searle + rules) does not have. Otherwise, as I've said, I'll grant you your point, and then say that this whole discussion is pointless, as you're concept of understanding is "That which people do", which is useless. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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