[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Understanding vs Experiencing Understanding
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:05:59 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> SWM wrote:
>
> >Dennett does not change the meaning of the term "understanding" (as we
> >might find it in a dictionary).
>
> >Dennett does aim to change the understanding we have of the term
> >"understanding" by giving us a different way to conceive it (i.e., to
> >see it for what it is, etc.).
>
> the point of the CRT is that the man in the CR does not *experience*
> understanding.
>
> how Dennett understands understanding is beside the point.
>
> Joe
It is precisely the point since the issue is what is needed for the man in the
room (or the system that the room is) to have an instance of understanding,
i.e., what does understanding the meaning of the symbol actually consist of in
creatures like us?
Think of the cartoon in that Scientific American article by Searle that was
posted by Gordon on this list with the man looking at the picture of the
Chinese word and thinking of a horse (as depicted in the thought balloon above
his head). What does it mean to understand X?
No one disputes that we experience our understanding and certainly Dennett does
not. The question on the table is what that is and, of course, how does it come
about?
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
