Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!oliveb!apple!vsi1!wyse!mips!prls!philabs!linus!mbunix!bwk From: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry W. Kort) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Summary: Understanding is a sometime thing. Keywords: Water, Sensory-Motor I/O, Learning, Drawing a Blank Message-ID: <45945@linus.UUCP> Date: 6 Mar 89 01:45:53 GMT References: <45126@linus.UUCP> <5662@homxc.UUCP> <45199@linus.UUCP> <45573@linus.UUCP> Sender: news@linus.UUCP Reply-To: bwk@mbunix.mitre.org (Barry Kort) Organization: The Moribund Corporation, Seventh Chapter, DE Lines: 20 In article harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad) writes: > (1) The ability to "learn" is a necessary but not a sufficient > condition for having a (normal) mind. I understand that very well. > (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, I stared at your paragraph (2) for five minutes, trying to understand it. I must confess that, like Searle's thought experiment, I simply didn't understand it. --Barry Kort