[Wittrs] Understanding "Understanding"
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 00:56:28 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> You need to put the CRA out of your mind and just think about axiom 3.
>
Why? The issue is the argument of which the third premise is just one piece. If
it's all about that premise then there's no point in the CRA but then Searle
was mistaken to make it!
> >> You would not understand the words in this sentence if
> >> they appeared in Chinese. Right?
> >
> > Of course not because I don't know Chinese, nor would I
> > understand them if they appeared in many other languages or
> > understand them in English if I didn't speak English!
>
> Right. But you know the shapes of the symbols and we can also give you rules
> for manipulating them according to those shapes.
>
And learning to read a language (or to speak one) involves learning the rules
of manipulating the symbols and sounds. Of course, we learn to do this with
understanding but only slowly. The question is what is THAT understanding?
Isn't it time you essayed an answer?
> Why can't you understand the symbols, Stuart? You have the syntax. Isn't that
> enough?? If not, why not?
>
> -gts
>
Once again you avoid my question by shifting to one of your own. But I will
answer yours, yet again, before you deign to respond to mine just to avoid the
confusion you keep kicking up here by trying to make this about MY alleged
refusal to answer a question you pose while you continue to duck my questions
repeatedly.
Answer: I can't understand Chinese, Gordon, because I haven't learned the right
associations. And if and when I do, I will understand.
Moreover, if the CR as a system had the same capacity to make the same
associations and learned them that I would need to understand Chinese, then
there is no reason to think it would not also understand Chinese!
Now my question again: What is it to have the right associations, Gordon? How
does that constitute what we call "understanding", if it does and, if it
doesn't, what is still missing?
WHAT DO YOU THINK UNDERSTANDING AMOUNTS TO, GORDON?
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Understanding "Understanding" - SWM
