From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon Mar  9 18:33:56 EST 1992
Article 4145 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!spool.mu.edu!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: <6307@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 28 Feb 92 20:26:36 GMT
Article-I.D.: skye.6307
References: <1992Feb22.181122.12088@oracorp.com> <6254@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Feb24.231735.4404@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 24

In article <1992Feb24.231735.4404@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>Indeed, if Harnad's explanation didn't help at all, why not?
>>What is this notion of understanding that you think is relevant
>>and that he failed to explain?  That, at least, is pretty obscure
>>to me.
>>
>Although I am not an 'AI type', I find Searle's use of word 'understanding'
>too fuzzy. I have already pointed out in a previous posting that the stories
>presented to CR can be 'understood' at different levels,  

Your message too.  Should I therefore dismiss it at the level at
which it was intended?

>                     Why is then incorrect to say that answering 
>correctly the questions put to CR indicates that it understands a certain
>meaning of the story, even if the person inside does not understand the exact
>meaning of the words? Hanard's trick obscures totally the fact that the story
>can be understood a different levels. A single word 'understand' does not 
>distinguish between these different levels.
>   There is a level at which the story can be understood without understanding
>the words. Is this so difficult to understand (:-))?

One thing that is hard to understand is why you think understanding
in one sense answers a question about uynderstanding in another.


