mangoe@umcp-cs.UUCP (Charley Wingate) (11/03/85)
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
rlr@pyuxd.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (11/07/85)
> 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? > [WINGATE] It's amazing some of the analogies that come out of this discussion on the Chinese Room examples, and though this sounds sarcastic I don't mean it that way. If we are analogizing between the "Chinese Room" and the brain (trying to reform the former so that it is more like the latter, which is exactly what Charley is doing), what IS the ability of the man to request aspirin? Is it not analogous to one receptive section of the brain working in tandem with the rest of the brain, sending a message (endocrine or otherwise) to another (the "I/O" or motor control section)? Is it not the very addition of these sorts of things that make the Chinese Room example more closely resembling of the human brain? I think this discussion is a more useful exercise in thinking that it might seem at first glance. --