Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!elbereth.rutgers.edu!harnad From: harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Summary: Learning is Necessary but not Sufficient Keywords: Water, Sensory-Motor I/O, Learning Message-ID: Date: 5 Mar 89 18:15:59 GMT References: <45126@linus.UUCP> <5662@homxc.UUCP> <45199@linus.UUCP> <45573@linus.UUCP> Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 29 bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) asked: " 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?... 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)? (1) The ability to "learn" is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for having a (normal) mind. (2) In Searle's thought experiment, as long as everything that's going on is PURELY SYMBOLIC (symbols in, symbols out, symbol-crunching in between) it does not matter how you interpret the symbolic goings on -- as a conversation, as "learning," as rule-updating, as what have you. The punchline's the same: Since Searle can do it all without understanding, there's no understanding at all going on. -- Stevan Harnad INTERNET: harnad@confidence.princeton.edu harnad@princeton.edu srh@flash.bellcore.com harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu harnad@princeton.uucp BITNET: harnad@pucc.bitnet CSNET: harnad%princeton.edu@relay.cs.net (609)-921-7771