of course not. But exceeding what humans can do in terms of reasoning is not an unreasonable bar for reasoning.
---
> My friend Cathy is capable of memorizing really long lists of random numbers. Does that mean she is good at reasoning?
The ability to memorize long lists of random numbers is a specific cognitive skill related to memory. Cathy's ability demonstrates an impressive short-term or working memory, and perhaps also a good long-term memory if she can recall those numbers over extended periods.
Reasoning, on the other hand, refers to the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. It's more about logical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to draw conclusions from information, rather than rote memorization.
While a strong memory can be an asset in many reasoning tasks (because it allows a person to quickly call upon relevant information), it doesn't directly indicate one's reasoning abilities. In other words, just because Cathy is excellent at memorizing numbers doesn't necessarily mean she's also good at reasoning. However, it also doesn't mean she isn't. The two skills can be related in some contexts, but they're not the same thing.
If you wanted to evaluate Cathy's reasoning skills, you'd need to look at her performance in tasks that require logical thinking, problem-solving, and other related abilities, rather than her memory capabilities.
> Cathy appears to be better at reasoning that a random internet commenter 'barkel'. Does that mean Cathy is good at reasoning?
Making comparisons between two individuals, Cathy and "barkel" in this case, doesn't provide an absolute measure of either person's reasoning abilities. If Cathy appears to be better at reasoning than barkel based on specific interactions or examples, it simply means she displayed better reasoning skills in those instances compared to barkel.
To truly determine if Cathy is "good" at reasoning, you'd need a more comprehensive evaluation of her reasoning abilities across various situations and challenges. Comparing her skills to one other individual doesn't provide a full perspective on her overall capabilities.
Remember, reasoning abilities can vary based on the subject matter, context, emotional state, and many other factors. So, while Cathy might be more effective in certain situations or on certain topics, it doesn't necessarily make her universally better at reasoning.
For an objective assessment of Cathy's reasoning skills, you'd need more consistent and broad-based evidence or testing, rather than a comparison with a single individual on the internet.
> If cathy is better than the median person at reasoning, is she good at reasoning?
If Cathy is better than the median person at reasoning, it means she scores higher than at least 50% of a given population in reasoning skills. In a relative sense, this would suggest that she is above average compared to that particular population.
However, the term "good" is somewhat subjective. In this context, being above the median does suggest that Cathy has a higher than average ability in reasoning. But whether that qualifies as "good" is a matter of perspective and can depend on the standards or benchmarks you're using.
If you're evaluating her skills based on general societal expectations, then yes, being above the median would likely be considered "good." However, if you're comparing her to a group of expert logicians or professional problem solvers, the standards might be different.
In summary, Cathy being better than the median person in reasoning suggests she has above-average skills in that area, but whether that is deemed "good" can depend on the context and standards you're applying.
That "it doesn't reason" in your meaning seems to depends on unknowable suppositions that are a quasi-metaphysical characterisation of the process of reasoning.
I'm defining reasoning from a set of observable outputs. The Chinese room isn't a thing.
---
> My friend Cathy is capable of memorizing really long lists of random numbers. Does that mean she is good at reasoning?
The ability to memorize long lists of random numbers is a specific cognitive skill related to memory. Cathy's ability demonstrates an impressive short-term or working memory, and perhaps also a good long-term memory if she can recall those numbers over extended periods.
Reasoning, on the other hand, refers to the process of forming conclusions, judgments, or inferences from facts or premises. It's more about logical thinking, problem-solving, and the ability to draw conclusions from information, rather than rote memorization.
While a strong memory can be an asset in many reasoning tasks (because it allows a person to quickly call upon relevant information), it doesn't directly indicate one's reasoning abilities. In other words, just because Cathy is excellent at memorizing numbers doesn't necessarily mean she's also good at reasoning. However, it also doesn't mean she isn't. The two skills can be related in some contexts, but they're not the same thing.
If you wanted to evaluate Cathy's reasoning skills, you'd need to look at her performance in tasks that require logical thinking, problem-solving, and other related abilities, rather than her memory capabilities.
> Cathy appears to be better at reasoning that a random internet commenter 'barkel'. Does that mean Cathy is good at reasoning?
Making comparisons between two individuals, Cathy and "barkel" in this case, doesn't provide an absolute measure of either person's reasoning abilities. If Cathy appears to be better at reasoning than barkel based on specific interactions or examples, it simply means she displayed better reasoning skills in those instances compared to barkel.
To truly determine if Cathy is "good" at reasoning, you'd need a more comprehensive evaluation of her reasoning abilities across various situations and challenges. Comparing her skills to one other individual doesn't provide a full perspective on her overall capabilities.
Remember, reasoning abilities can vary based on the subject matter, context, emotional state, and many other factors. So, while Cathy might be more effective in certain situations or on certain topics, it doesn't necessarily make her universally better at reasoning.
For an objective assessment of Cathy's reasoning skills, you'd need more consistent and broad-based evidence or testing, rather than a comparison with a single individual on the internet.
> If cathy is better than the median person at reasoning, is she good at reasoning?
If Cathy is better than the median person at reasoning, it means she scores higher than at least 50% of a given population in reasoning skills. In a relative sense, this would suggest that she is above average compared to that particular population.
However, the term "good" is somewhat subjective. In this context, being above the median does suggest that Cathy has a higher than average ability in reasoning. But whether that qualifies as "good" is a matter of perspective and can depend on the standards or benchmarks you're using.
If you're evaluating her skills based on general societal expectations, then yes, being above the median would likely be considered "good." However, if you're comparing her to a group of expert logicians or professional problem solvers, the standards might be different.
In summary, Cathy being better than the median person in reasoning suggests she has above-average skills in that area, but whether that is deemed "good" can depend on the context and standards you're applying.