From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Jan 21 09:26:47 EST 1992
Article 2846 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle Agrees with Strong AI?
Message-ID: <6009@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 17 Jan 92 21:03:20 GMT
References: <1992Jan16.054716.14332@oracorp.com> <1992Jan16.213007.5245@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Reply-To: jeff@aiai.UUCP (Jeff Dalton)
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 24

In article <1992Jan16.213007.5245@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:
>Jeff Dalton writes:
>
>> What I am saying in this thread is that Searle thinks the behavior is
>> not possible without understanding.
>
>I think you're projecting your own attitudes onto Searle.  Nothing
>in Searle's writing suggests this.

Actually, I am _not_ projecting my attitudes onto Searle.  Despite
using myself in a suppositon as someone who thinks behavior is not
possible without understanding, that is not actually a view that I
hold.

My own view is that the behavior may well be possible without
understanding, but that we don't yet know enough to reach a
definitive conclusion either way.

I will be interested, BTW, to see how Barbara Webb treats the
difference between my actual views and the views I assumed for the
sake of argument.  Perhaps I am now comitted to the view that
behavior is not possible without understanding...

-- jeff


