I’d be interested in hearing from anyone who takes the Chinese Room scenario seriously, or at least can see how it applies to any of this.
I cannot see that it matters if a computer understands something. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, and your only need is for it to quack and walk like a duck, then it doesn’t matter if it’s actually a duck or not for all intents and purposes.
It only matters if you probe beyond the realm at which you previously decided it matters (e.g roasting and eating it), at which point you are also insisting that it walk, quack and TASTE like a duck. So then you quantify that, change the goalposts, and assess every prospective duck against that.
And if one comes along that matches all of those but doesn’t have wings, then if you deny it to be a duck FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES it simply means you didn’t specify your requirements.
I’m no philosopher, but if your argument hinges on moving goalposts until purity is reached, and your basic assumption is that the requirements for purity are infinite, then it’s not a very useful argument.
It seems to me to posit that to understand requires that the understandee is human. If that’s the case we just pick another word for it and move on with our lives.
I cannot see that it matters if a computer understands something. If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck, and your only need is for it to quack and walk like a duck, then it doesn’t matter if it’s actually a duck or not for all intents and purposes.
It only matters if you probe beyond the realm at which you previously decided it matters (e.g roasting and eating it), at which point you are also insisting that it walk, quack and TASTE like a duck. So then you quantify that, change the goalposts, and assess every prospective duck against that.
And if one comes along that matches all of those but doesn’t have wings, then if you deny it to be a duck FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES it simply means you didn’t specify your requirements.
I’m no philosopher, but if your argument hinges on moving goalposts until purity is reached, and your basic assumption is that the requirements for purity are infinite, then it’s not a very useful argument.
It seems to me to posit that to understand requires that the understandee is human. If that’s the case we just pick another word for it and move on with our lives.