Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!agate!helios.ee.lbl.gov!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <3305@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 21 Feb 89 16:07:19 GMT References: Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 20 From article , by harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad): " ... " But all of that is irrelevant anyway, because in the Chinese Room there " is first-person evidence available that there's NO Chinese " understanding going on in there -- ... I can't agree to that, except as a terminological point. That is, if the program is to characterize the way 'understand' is ordinarily used, I have a limited sympathy with the argument. When we know the mechanism behind the behavior, we don't usually speak of 'understanding'. But even as mere linguistics, it's second rate, since when one chooses not to think or talk in terms of mechanism, 'understand' is still often appropriate. And we do develop new usages in the course of a conversation, as here when some come to be willing to attribute understanding to the Chinese room. Philosophers doing second-rate linguistics can be trying. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu