Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!sri-unix!ellis
From: ellis@unix.SRI.COM (Michael Ellis)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument
Keywords: Water, Sensory-Motor I/O, Learning
Message-ID: <28324@sri-unix.SRI.COM>
Date: 6 Mar 89 22:34:52 GMT
References: <45126@linus.UUCP> <5662@homxc.UUCP> <45199@linus.UUCP> <917@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> <45573@linus.UUCP>
Reply-To: ellis@unix.sri.com (Michael Ellis)
Organization: SRI, Menlo Park, CA.
Lines: 24

>> Thomas Edwards  > Barry Kort

>>      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?

    For Searle, "the rules" may involve variables or be mutable.
    "The Rules" in principle may do anything a Turing machine
    can do or else Searle's argument loses its punch. I have heard
    him say as much several times.

>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)?

    Sure, but neither Searle nor Harnad has overlooked that. That's
    just not at issue here. Go back and read your copy of Mind's_Eye
    again..

-michael