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