[dmfdmf]

Thanks for rebutting Chathamization's gross misrepresentation of Searle's argument.

> It's all theoretical as long as you stick to simple tests (like multiple-choice exams), but becomes relevant when you suddenly expand the context (like requiring the student to prove some theorem instead of doing a calculation).

Not even expanding the context changes the situation. The proof of a theorem can be memorized without any understanding just as easily as algebraic rules.

> Second, we also know that for humans this difference isn't just quantitative. Memorizing more algebraic rules and training in their application will not automatically result in students gaining understanding of mathematical principles.

This is correct and the same principle applies not just to humans but to computers too (which was the point of Searle's argument). No amount of computation is going to make a computer aware or understand the meaning of the symbols. Ultimately "meaning" is our perceptual awareness of existence but that is a long proof for another day.

[romaniv]

> The proof of a theorem can be memorized without any understanding just as easily as algebraic rules.

Sure, but in practice students who rely purely on memorization can't answer questions that go beyond what's directly covered in textbooks.

[dmfdmf]

Questions from another conscious being that understands meaning and isn't just processing symbols, of course.