Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site umcp-cs.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!seismo!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!mangoe From: mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) Newsgroups: net.philosophy Subject: Chinese Room understandings Message-ID: <2080@umcp-cs.UUCP> Date: Sun, 3-Nov-85 13:50:14 EST Article-I.D.: umcp-cs.2080 Posted: Sun Nov 3 13:50:14 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 08:40:32 EST References: <1810@watdcsu.UUCP> Distribution: net Organization: U of Maryland, Computer Science Dept., College Park, MD Lines: 21 The Chinese Room discussion has reached a point where I think it's relevant to ask what we think understanding is. One thing that is quite striking about human beings is that there certainly is a quite obvious subjective difference to person as to whether he is doing something simply by rote, or is actually understanding (and acting on that understanding). So the next question is, are there behavioral differences which can distinguish the two? Let us suppose David Canzi's Chinese Brain man (the one who has memorized the rules) gets a headache. How can he ask for an aspirin? Back in the Chinese Room, he could not. But let us suppose he has additional rules which allow him to put in requests. Isn't it clear that he is thus essentially in the position of a man with a Chinese-Blanklish dictionary? The point is that the system cannot originate anything (especially as originally conceived, but even after all the modifications). All the intentions come either from without, or from the person acting the system. In the Room, if the two people on the ends of the conversation were to walk away, then there would be not action; the system is completely driven by their actions. Charley Wingate