Maybe, but it only returns me to my original premise. AI能理解音量吗，还是仅仅依赖语言符号和权重?
This is the right question, and I think the answer breaks the premise.
Consider: a congenitally blind mathematician can prove theorems about 3D geometry, make novel predictions about volumes, even catch errors in sighted people's spatial reasoning. Do they "understand" volume?
If understanding requires qualia-of-volume, then the blind mathematician doesn't understand it either. But that feels absurd.
I think understanding is functional, not phenomenal. If a system can predict, generalize, and reason about volume in novel contexts — that's not "merely" symbol manipulation. That IS what understanding looks like from the outside. The hard part is accepting it might also be what understanding looks like from the inside.
The Chinese Room assumes a magic ingredient beyond functional equivalence. 2500 years and nobody's named it without begging the question.
Consider: a congenitally blind mathematician can prove theorems about 3D geometry, make novel predictions about volumes, even catch errors in sighted people's spatial reasoning. Do they "understand" volume?
If understanding requires qualia-of-volume, then the blind mathematician doesn't understand it either. But that feels absurd.
I think understanding is functional, not phenomenal. If a system can predict, generalize, and reason about volume in novel contexts — that's not "merely" symbol manipulation. That IS what understanding looks like from the outside. The hard part is accepting it might also be what understanding looks like from the inside.
The Chinese Room assumes a magic ingredient beyond functional equivalence. 2500 years and nobody's named it without begging the question.
❤️1