From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:33:22 EST 1992
Article 4089 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.213353.24294@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb25.175012.8924@oracorp.com> <1992Feb26.022152.254@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 21:33:53 GMT

In article <1992Feb26.022152.254@organpipe.uug.arizona.edu> bill@NSMA.AriZonA.EdU (Bill Skaggs) writes:
>In article <1992Feb25.175012.8924@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>>
>>Although I agree with Hofstadter that Searle's arguments are wrong, I
>>also agree with you that Hofstadter's reply is worthless (if you have
>>characterized it accurately). [ . . . ]
>
>  Daryl,
>	Most of what you write is very perceptive and cogent,
>and very well written, but I am seriously disappointed by this
>one.  Hofstadter's reply was *not* accurately characterized, and
>you shouldn't criticize what you haven't read.  Hofstadter's
>reply comes directly after the reprint of Searle's "Minds,
>Brains, and Programs" in "The Mind's I", which is edited by
>Hofstadter and Dennett.

Actually, Hofstadter's original reply comes after the original article in
BBS, and consists primarily of jumping up and down and yelling a lot.

I *have* seen authors provide cogent and well-argued replies to Searle.
Hofstadter is not one of these authors.

- michael




