Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Brain and Mind (was: Logic and God)
From: system@CODEWKS.nacjack.gen.nz (Wayne McDougall)
Date: Thu, 08 Oct 92 09:31:26 NZDST
Organization: The Code Works Limited, PO Box 10-155, Auckland, New Zealand

mhf4421@usl.edu (Flynn Matthew H) writes:

> Hi,  I'm not exactly an expert on AI or anything, but well, what am I 
> apologizing for anyhow....
> 
> n looking at the problem of understanding, it is necessary to look at the 
> different levels of what we call human understanding.  These different levels
> are nicely seen in contrast in grammar school.  For example, third grade, 
> multiplication tables.  A child is taught that 2*1=2, 2*2=4, 2*3=6, etc.
> This is very similar to the Chinese room, in that the student does not know
> why 2*3=6, but if they are given 2 and three, and are told to times them, the
> will respond "6".  Some time later on the students are taught the associative
> and communicative principles, and they "understand" multiplication a bit bett
> Perhaps they are taught geometry, and the concept of length times width equal
> area--another set of instructions.  
> 
> 
> M.H.Flynn
> 

The above does not equate at all with my clear recollections of being 
taught multiplication.
We started with addition, which was well-grounded in concrete facts. Two 
apples added to a group of 3 apples.....count the new group....5 apples! 
Every time! Even if they were oranges! Amazing.
With the use of quatrainne blocks, it was visibly clear that the length 
of the "two" rod next to the length of the "three" rod was the same as 
the length of the "five" rod. You could put the first two next to the 
latter, and they were exactly the same length. And it was visible that 
they always would be the same length.

A this stage we also have the commutative principle demonstrated. It 
didn't matter if you had the two block on the left and the three rod on 
the right or vice versa.....it was still the same length as the five rod. 
From a visual point of view this becomes a trivial observation. 
Similarly, the associative principle is shown when the (2+3) rods plus 
the 4 rod (which were the same lengths as the 9 rod), would also match 
BOTH the 2 rod plus the (3&4) rods and ALSO the nine rod.

Finally, the concept of multiplication was NOT taught by the repetition 
of multiplication tables (that came two years later). It was taught as 
repeated addition (that multiplication was a shorthand for saying add the 
same number this many times).

It was visually clear that 5 lots of the "two" rods placed together made 
10, and 2+2+2+2+2=10. How many "2's" are there? Five. A shorter way of 
saying this is "5x2=10". Voila! And since multiplication is just a 
shorthand for addition, we  didn't take very long just to check that 
associative and commutative principles still applied when using this 
"shorthand".

I could go on in regard to areas etc, but I won't!

To summarise: I disagree that multiplication and other grammer school 
learning is similar to the Chinese Room. As I hope I demonstrated above, 
at least in my case (and most other New Zealanders at least!), the 
concepts were NOT taught as rules, but grounded in the sensory realm of 
testing, observation and experience. I "understood" multiplication before 
I understood the rules.

And I suggest that teaching as "rules" would be far harder and less 
profitable.

-- 
  Wayne McDougall, BCNU
  This .sig unintentionally left blank.

Hello! I'm a .SIG Virus. Copy me and spread the fun.
  Scot Wilson, The man with One T.            u9044140@wraith.cs.uow.edu.au
    "Its Scot with 1 T because all the other four letter words were used."

Warning: This .signature may be suddenly, and without prior notice, be cut shor
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy