3 ms·
> The argument doesn't need to explain exactly what understanding means. We all (sort of) know what it means. Then what does "understanding" a language mean? Y
by myrmidon 4y ago
> The argument doesn't need to explain exactly what understanding means. We all (sort of) know what it means.
Then what does "understanding" a language mean? Your "asking for a glass of water on the street" example implies to me that you demand a system with:
a) capability for internal intent
b) ability to express intent in target language
to grant it "understanding".
Basically, first you deliberately construct a system not capable of intent (pure stateless query-response algorithm), then you deny that it "understands" Chinese on the basis of being unable to express intent. That does not hold.
Give me a precise definition for what you mean by "understanding" and I'll dismantle the Chinese Room for you.
- tgv 4y ago> Give me a precise definition for what you mean by "understanding" and I'll dismantle the Chinese Room for you. You probably can't define "chair" in an exact enough sense. It would merely show the shortcoming of the definition rather than refuting the Chinese Room. > a system not capable of intent If I now would require a definition of "intent" I would be just as childish. > That does not hold. First, the system isn't stateless. It has the operator who has to remember what has happened before in order to come up with a correct translation. Second, your argument implies that understanding requires intent. That alone is a tall order to prove. But it's the point of the Chinese Room: the mechanism doesn't understand, doesn't have intent, nothing. Yet it performs exactly as an intelligent, understanding, intentional translator. So would you not agree with the conclusion: you can't judge intent by only looking at I/O behavior? Note that Searle (probably, this is just my understanding) doesn't mean that the Room is useless or "dumb" (in most senses of the word).