From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon Mar  9 18:33:53 EST 1992
Article 4141 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <6303@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Feb 92 19:41:59 GMT
References: <1992Feb22.181122.12088@oracorp.com> <6254@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb26.102122.22893@nuscc.nus.sg>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 15

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."

I suppose it's possible to quibble endlessly about the word
"understand" and thus avoid ever considering Searle's argument.
But all that's actually required to make the first step is
that you can distinguish between a case where you understand
a language and one where you don't.  A full understanding
of everything that understanding involves is not required,
nor is a an understanding of all sorts of other senses of
the word "understand".


