Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!unmvax!pprg.unm.edu!hc!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!hp4nl!htsa!fransvo
From: fransvo@htsa.uucp (Frans van Otten)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <820@htsa.uucp>
Date: 4 Apr 89 20:18:47 GMT
References: <3637@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu>
Reply-To: fransvo@htsa.UUCP (Frans van Otten)
Organization: AHA-TMF (Technical Institute), Amsterdam Netherlands
Lines: 86

Greg Lee writes:

>It's hard to see where CR understanding might come from (if it exists).
>
>These things don't exist ... the effort to program meaning into a
>machine can never be successful ... because there's simply no such
>thing in the world to be found in us or to be put into a machine.

Without getting too philosophical, let me explain that this is partly
true and partly false.  Humans are conscious.  This is true simply
because we state it.  But what do we mean by "conscious" ?  It is some
subjective phenomenon.  Subjective phenomena are in my opinion nothing
more than certain internal states (a flag that is set, a variable, ...).
So when I say "I am conscious" I only say that that specific flag is
set.  So consciousness does exist (otherwise the word would never have
been invented), but it is not a phenomenon that can be observed or
detected in the functional structure or in the chemical structure or
whereever.

The same holds for "understanding".  I define "understanding" as
"represented in internal symbols".  So it is valid to say that my
calculator understands addition; it is hard-wired into it.

Understanding in itself is useless.  But it becomes neccesary when
you want to do something with this understood concept (or whatever
it is).  So when I want to use my calculator, it must be able to
perform the rules for addition (which it understands).  So I have
to feed it with batteries and numbers.  At the moment that I feed
it with numbers, it understands the instantion of addition I want
it to perform now, e.g. 5 + 3 = 8.

So "understanding" exists at many levels: I can understand a general
concept like addition, but I can also understand an instantion of
addition: I understand that 5 and 3 are 8.

The more general "rules" that a system "understands" determine the
general behaviour of a system.  This set of rules is more commonly
referred to as the "intelligence" of the system.  The more rules
the system understands, the more intelligent it is.  Don't immediately
say "nonsense"; think about it.  Don't you ever note the use of this
word in general ?  In signatures, some people write:

   Dumb mailers:          {backbones}!foo!bar!etc!my_name
   Intelligent mailers:   my_name@etc.foo_domain

When we are not discussing AI, "understanding" is a normal word.
Under normal circumstances, a watch understands to include februari
29 every fourth year.  But when we start discussing AI (or AI-related
philosophy) words like "understanding" and "intelligence" get a
mysterious load.

The Chinese Room Argument is nonsense.  Let me explain it once more:
 
  1. It passes the TT.  This means: a human being can't tell the
     difference between a Chinaman and The Room.  The behaviour
     of the room is such that the humans in the jury set their
     flag: "it understands".

  2. John Searle, inside the room, doesn't experience understanding
     of Chinese.  This means:  the internal state of the system
     "Searle" are such that he concludes (unconsciously) not to set
     his flag "I understand".

  3. John Searle then concludes: "As I don't understand, the entire
     Room doesn't understand" (etc).  He should have concluded:  "I
     don't seem to understand, but this doesn't say anything about
     the Rooms understanding capability".

  4. I say:  Sure, the room does understand Chinese.  Only to the
     extend that the set of books provide for, of course.  And of
     course, the Room has not the [human] sense of "understanding",
     as there is no flag for such an internal state.

  5. I add to that:  In humans, these "flags" are probably located
     in the right hemisphere.  And the symbol grouding problem is
     probably solved in humans by connecting "understood" concepts
     to "understood" (physical) sensations.  (This latter statement
     is supported by certain psychological models.)  Disclaimer: I
     am not sure about these statements, they merely seem very
     probable to me.

-- 
	Frans van Otten
	Algemene Hogeschool Amsterdam
	Technische en Maritieme Faculteit
	fransvo@htsa.uucp