Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uwm.edu!bionet!ames!pacbell!osc!jgk From: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Sci. American AI debate Summary: Understanding does not exist. Keywords: free will, thinking, understanding Message-ID: <1826@osc.COM> Date: 8 Jan 90 23:34:06 GMT References: <85384@linus.UUCP> <16577@megaron.cs.arizona.edu> <12667@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> <52471@srcsip.UUCP> <12760@phoenix.Princeton.EDU> Reply-To: jgk@osc.COM (Joe Keane) Organization: Object Sciences Corp., Menlo Park, CA Lines: 38 I think Mr. Jones and Mr. Pfleger have hit on a key point, and we should pursue this point further. In my opinion, Searle's argument is basically an appeal to common sense reasoning. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, but i think that in this case we should examine it carefully. The terms `thinking' and `understanding' are key in his argument, and we are expected to draw conclusions based on our interpretation of their meaning. These are familiar, commonly used terms, and most people would not believe there can be a great dispute about their meaning. After all, we know when we are thinking, and we have a good idea when we understand something or when we don't. Furthermore, although we know it's impossible to know other people's thoughts, we often have a good idea what they are thinking, and whether or not they understand something. This comes from what they say in conversation, and often from facial expressions and other body language. However, when we apply these terms to things other than people similar to us, some problems start to appear. People aren't even consistent about whether animals can think or understand. I may say that a language understands how to manipulate complex numbers, or that a program is thinking about the result i want. Some may criticise this usage as being overly creative; the interpreter is executing a predefined algorithm, so surely it doesn't understand anything. But i believe this is just a language usage issue. Now, to the main point. There is no test we can perform to determine for sure whether a system understands something or not; the best we can do is ask it. Certainly we can try to make an operational definition of understanding, but Searle specifically says that's not what he's talking about. In fact, there is no experiment we can come up with to determine whether or not Searle's argument is correct, or even to give evidence either way. Now, as scientists, we should start to be a bit distressed that we're arguing so much about something which has no basis in reality. The terms `thinking' and `understanding' now sit with similar terms like `free will' and `intention'. The property these terms have in common is that they do not refer to any property in the real world; they are concepts completely invented and defined by humans. As far as i'm concerned, these terms are for philosophers to argue about, and scientists should try to avoid getting mired in what is strictly a philosophical debate.