🚀 go-pugleaf

An interesting point that I don't think anyone has mentioned is the
following.  Searle says that since he says he does not understand
Chinese, he in fact does not.  To the objection that perhaps he does
understand Chinese without knowing it, he replies that he is the
absolute expert on his understanding or lack thereof.  If we accept this
as a premise, then by the same logic, suppose we put the question "Do
you understand Chinese?" to the Chinese room (in Chinese, of course). 
We naturally get the answer "Yes", and thus conclude, by Searle's
reasoning, that the room *does* in fact understand Chinese.  This fact
implies that Searle's lack of understanding in no way prevents there
from being understanding going on, whether due to the "systems reply"
being correct, or whatever; this depends on the definition of
understanding used.  In any case, Searle is hoist on his own petar,
since his argument has an entirely self-contained contradiction.


--
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Sean Philip Engelson, Poet Errant	Make your learning a fixture;
Yale Department of Computer Science	Say little and do much;
Box 2158 Yale Station			And receive everyone with 
New Haven, CT 06520			   a friendly attitude.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
	Esperanto: metodo por krei paca mondo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Theoretical physicist---a physicist whose existence is postulated, to
make the numbers balance, but who is never actually observed in the
laboratory.
		--Joseph Voros