Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!cs.utexas.edu!rutgers!noao!arizona!mike From: mike@arizona.edu (Mike Coffin) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <9560@megaron.arizona.edu> Date: 4 Mar 89 16:28:05 GMT References: Organization: U of Arizona CS Dept, Tucson Lines: 26 Stevan Harnad writes: > I completely agree with the last proposition, except that understanding > is not one of those properties. Why? Because when Searle stands in for > the computer, doing everything it does, executing all of its algorithms, > he does not understand. Hence neither can the computer understand, when > it does exactly the same thing. True, but no one said he (or it) did understand. The argument is that the SYSTEM --- Searle, or the computer, running an algorithm --- understands. Searle corresponds to the bare machine. Asking Searle if he understands is equivalent to running a debugger on the "Chinese algorithm"; the fact that the debugger doesn't understand Chinese is not an argument that the rest of the system doesn't. It is interesting that you consistently refuse to talk about the system as an entity unto itself. You do this in spite of all the evidence of your senses --- remember, this system passes the Turing test! You have this impressive system in front of you; it certainly seems to understand Chinese; Searle certainly doesn't; the rules by themselves certainly don't. Yet you ignore the evidence and insist on talking about components of the system as if they were the system. It almost looks like you're in the grips of an ideology :-) -- Mike Coffin mike@arizona.edu Univ. of Ariz. Dept. of Comp. Sci. {allegra,cmcl2}!arizona!mike Tucson, AZ 85721 (602)621-2858