Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!apple!voder!pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument
Summary: Can I refine the rules, or am I an automaton?
Keywords: Water, Sensory-Motor I/O, Learning
Message-ID: <45573@linus.UUCP>
Date: 2 Mar 89 17:17:40 GMT
References: <45126@linus.UUCP> <5662@homxc.UUCP> <45199@linus.UUCP> <917@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry Kort)
Organization: Garden Golems, Inc., Norbert, WI
Lines: 28

In article <917@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> ins_atge@jhunix.UUCP
(Thomas G Edwards) writes:

 >      However, in the Chinese Room experiment, we are assuming that
 > the rule operator has indeed been endowed with rules to operate
 > on, and as such these rules are defacto sensory input from the
 > outside.  

 >      Moreover, the incomming Chinese is also sensory input.
 > Rules may exist which change due to incoming Chinese.

Perhaps Stevan can clarify this point for us, because I believe
it is pivotal.  In Searle's thought experiment, are the rules
immutable, or do they evolve as a function of the information
contained in the Chinese stories?

As I recall, Searle set it up so that the rules didn't change
as a function of the Chinese input.

To my mind, a system which understands is a system which integrates
new information into an expanding knowledge base, and this includes
new and improved information-processing techniques (i.e., the "rules").

When we talk about "understanding" in human terms, don't we really
mean the ability to gain understanding (as opposed to merely having
a fixed amount of understanding)?

--Barry Kort