Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!apple!oliveb!pyramid!prls!philabs!linus!mbunix!bwk
From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Chinese Room
Summary: Feed the room a story about itself.  What happens?
Keywords: Who-ness
Message-ID: <45915@linus.UUCP>
Date: 5 Mar 89 10:00:30 GMT
References: <1806@dvinci.USask.CA>
Sender: news@linus.UUCP
Reply-To: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry Kort)
Organization: Garden Golems, Inc., Norbert, WI
Lines: 28

Mike Oliphant raises an interesting wrinkle on the Chinese Room.

He posits two entities with identical observable behavior, except
that one has subjective understanding while the other is a mere
automaton, like the Chinese Room, with no subjective understanding.

Now, in the Chinese Room thought experiment, we give the Room a
story, and then ask it questions about the story.

Suppose we ask, "Did you understand the story?"

Does the Room mechanically answer (dishonestly), "Yes, I understood it."?

According to Mike's scenario, the Room must respond identically to its
model.  So far, no problem.

Now we give both entitiies another story.  The story is a Chinese
translation of Searle's "Chinese Room Thought Experiment".  We
again ask both entities if they understood.

The one-who-understands, says, "Hmmm.  That is a thought-provoking
story.  I'm not sure I fully understand it."

Does the automaton answer likewise?  How can the automaton's response
be a deception?   What is the Room doing with the symbols for "you"
and "I"?

--Barry Kort