From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spdcc!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Wed Feb 26 12:53:46 EST 1992
Article 3940 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3940 sci.philosophy.tech:2167
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spdcc!das-news.harvard.edu!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.015634.9079@husc3.harvard.edu>
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Date: 23 Feb 92 01:56:33 EST
References: <43686@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Feb22.234252.17095@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb23.044200.29383@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu
Lines: 62

In article <1992Feb23.044200.29383@mp.cs.niu.edu> 
rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>In article <1992Feb22.234252.17095@psych.toronto.edu> 
>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:

CG:
>>perspective, this is no argument at all. Searle is *giving* his 
>>opponents that a human could accomplish this astounding feat (just
>>as he gives them the possibility that a language could be reduced to
>>a finite set of rules; a matter which leads to all sorts of confusion).

NR:
>  Yes indeed.  It is very generous of Searle to give this single human the
>superhuman ability to perform a task that might require a billion concurrent
>human minds.
>
>  But what the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away.  After granting
>the superhuman powers to allow him to perform the task, Searle suddenly
>strips away all the extra power, and asks whether the single human mind
>remaining could, merely by having shared the same body as those billion
>concurrent minds, now understand Chinese.
>
>  The argument is a very clever debating trick.  But it proves nothing.

The fact that, in spite of having conducted interminable discussions on
this subject, you've yet to come up with a conclusive and persuasive
refutation of Searle's argument leaves me on the horns of a dilemma:

(i) Either you and your coreligionists lack the requisite eristic
*cleverness* needed in order to make a suitable impression on Searle's
public; 

or

(ii) The lack is in your abject failure to *understand* the argument.

In light of recent revelations of the vacuousness of the concepts of
reference and understanding, I suspect that (ii) is the case.

Why not leave it at that?

>-- 
>=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=*=
>  Neil W. Rickert, Computer Science               <rickert@cs.niu.edu>
>  Northern Illinois Univ.
>  DeKalb, IL 60115                                   +1-815-753-6940

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`





