From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!math.utah.edu!news.math.utah.edu!dirish Mon Jan  6 10:30:28 EST 1992
Article 2489 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!apple!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!hellgate.utah.edu!math.utah.edu!news.math.utah.edu!dirish
>From: dirish@math.utah.edu (Dudley Irish)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Ignore Searle and be happier
Message-ID: <DIRISH.92Jan3083118@jeeves.math.utah.edu>
Date: 3 Jan 92 15:31:18 GMT
References: <1991Dec30.234440.1645@mp.cs.niu.edu>
	<1992Jan2.161407.20515@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
	<1992Jan2.175438.20066@mp.cs.niu.edu>
	<1992Jan2.205234.22457@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com>
Sender: news@math.utah.edu
Organization: Department of Mathematics, University of Utah
Lines: 18
In-Reply-To: petersow@saifr00.cfsat.honeywell.com's message of 2 Jan 92 20: 52:34 GMT

The standard philosophical definition of knowledge is a justified true
belief.  As you can see this quickly reduced the question of whether a
tree has knowledge to whether the tree can hold beliefs.  In my
opinion, no.

All that aside, if you want to redefine knowledge to be something
other than justified true belief then you are going to have to justify
your new definition.  And everybody will be quick to pick holes in it.
Until then, lets all just stick to the widely accepted definition.

Dudley Irish
--
________________________________________________________________________
Dudley Irish / dirish@math.utah.edu / Manager Computer Operations
Center for Scientific Computing, Dept of Mathematics, University of Utah

The views expressed in this message do not reflect the views of the
Dept of Mathematics, the University of Utah, or the State of Utah.


