From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:33:23 EST 1992
Article 4092 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: <1992Feb27.221255.417@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb22.181122.12088@oracorp.com> <6254@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb26.102122.22893@nuscc.nus.sg>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 22:12:55 GMT

In article <1992Feb26.102122.22893@nuscc.nus.sg> smoliar@iss.nus.sg (stephen smoliar) writes:

>Well I think we can begin by questioning whether or not Harnad provided an
>explanation.  He provided a situation.  He uttered some Hungarian (supposedly),
>asked his audience if they understood, and claimed that they then knew "what
>understanding involves."  The situation was an instance of a verbal
>transaction.  My first question is whether or not one can generalize
>from a single instance.  (There is that old saw about one not being
>a statistic.)  My second question is, assuming that one CAN generalize,
>can one generalize to the concept of "understanding."  I would argue that
>our use of the word is far too rich and context-dependent to assume that
>Harnad's situation is, in any way, prototypical of the way in which the
>word is used.  At best it serves as a model for other situations (such
>as being confronted with a text in rot-13) where we can say the same lack
>of understanding is taking place;  but this is a far cry from assuming that,
>on the basis of that one model, one knows "what understanding involves."

Once again, all that is necessary for Searle's argument is that there be
situations in which we have a lack of understanding, as in the case of
Hungarian (for me, at least), and cases in which we clearly *do*
have understanding, as in the case of English (again, at least for me,
when not reading some of the posting on comp.ai.philosophy...)

- michael



