throopw@rtp47.UUCP (Wayne Throop) (11/06/85)
[The discussion is about the "Chinese Room" thought experiment, proposed by Searle to show that formal systems can't be made to "understand" without having "intensionality" and "causal powers".] Todd Moody writes: > The example shows that there could be two 'systems,' both of > which pass the Turing test, but only one of which understands..." This is the point where Searle and I part company. His claim is that the "Chinese room" doesn't understand the Chinese language. As nearly as I can tell, when asked *why* this is the case, the response is essentially "Because it just *doesn't*, so *there*!" Perhaps someone can help me out here. Is there some more substantive reason for thinking that the Chinese room *system* doesn't understand? My position is that this is an *assertion* of Searle's, and is backed up only by our identification with the non-understanding man *in* the room. -- Wayne Throop at Data General, RTP, NC <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti-sel!rtp47!throopw