🚀 go-pugleaf

I think Mr. Jones and Mr. Pfleger have hit on a key point, and we should
pursue this point further.  In my opinion, Searle's argument is basically an
appeal to common sense reasoning.  There's nothing inherently wrong with that,
but i think that in this case we should examine it carefully.

The terms `thinking' and `understanding' are key in his argument, and we are
expected to draw conclusions based on our interpretation of their meaning.
These are familiar, commonly used terms, and most people would not believe
there can be a great dispute about their meaning.  After all, we know when we
are thinking, and we have a good idea when we understand something or when we
don't.  Furthermore, although we know it's impossible to know other people's
thoughts, we often have a good idea what they are thinking, and whether or not
they understand something.  This comes from what they say in conversation, and
often from facial expressions and other body language.

However, when we apply these terms to things other than people similar to us,
some problems start to appear.  People aren't even consistent about whether
animals can think or understand.  I may say that a language understands how to
manipulate complex numbers, or that a program is thinking about the result i
want.  Some may criticise this usage as being overly creative; the interpreter
is executing a predefined algorithm, so surely it doesn't understand anything.
But i believe this is just a language usage issue.

Now, to the main point.  There is no test we can perform to determine for sure
whether a system understands something or not; the best we can do is ask it.
Certainly we can try to make an operational definition of understanding, but
Searle specifically says that's not what he's talking about.  In fact, there
is no experiment we can come up with to determine whether or not Searle's
argument is correct, or even to give evidence either way.  Now, as scientists,
we should start to be a bit distressed that we're arguing so much about
something which has no basis in reality.

The terms `thinking' and `understanding' now sit with similar terms like `free
will' and `intention'.  The property these terms have in common is that they
do not refer to any property in the real world; they are concepts completely
invented and defined by humans.  As far as i'm concerned, these terms are for
philosophers to argue about, and scientists should try to avoid getting mired
in what is strictly a philosophical debate.