ke@otter.hpl.hp.com (Kave Eshghi) (03/15/89)
from Kave Eshghi at HP Labs, Bristol The main problem, as I see it, with Searle's Chinese Room scenario is that it separates 'understanding' from the day to day activity, and indeed survival needs, of the individual who is alleged to have this property. To make myself clear, imagine that Searle is not imprisoned inside a room, where his only meansof interaction with the outside world is through written notes in chinese, but that he has actually memorised all the rules and is now required to _live_ in China. Now consider the following situation: Searle is driving along and sees a sign which says (in Chinese) Danger- this road leads to an unguarded cliff. Will he slow down and stop, or will he carry on driving? The point is that if he can 'interpret' the sign in a way that leads him to change his behaviour in order to safeguard his existence, then in my view understands the meaning of the sign. Consider another example: Searle's son comes home from school, and says (in chinese) that there is a strange man following him every day. Will he get very upset, and immediatley contact the police? If he does, then he has understood what has been said to him, because this understanding is essential to the subsequent behaviour which is aimed at protecting his child. My point is that language is only one part of the complex behaviour of humans, but 'understanding' has to do with totality of human existence - their need for food, safety, sex, etc. If a human being can link his linguistic input (in Chinese or otherwise) to the totality of his needs and act on it in an intelligent way, then he understands the language in question. It must be remembered that understanding can have many different levels, so I might know the word for 'danger' in German, but not much else. But it seems obvious to me that if someone can go through his life using a language in his day to day activities, then he knows that languge fairly well.