From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Tue Jan 21 09:26:54 EST 1992
Article 2859 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Penrose on Man vs. Machine
Message-ID: <381@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 17 Jan 92 19:04:30 GMT
References: <1992Jan9.211337.14379@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <5939@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Jan13.230532.26592@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <1992Jan14.040820.26868@unixg.ubc.ca> <375@tdatirv.UUCP> <1992Jan15.190833.27578@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 19

In article <1992Jan15.190833.27578@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
| However, the term 'understanding' is widely and effectively
|used on the basis of an operational definition (correct answers to a set of 
|test questions) and there is no reason why not to keep using it this way till
|something more precise is devised. On the other hand rejecting this practical
|definition without providing at least a semblance of alternative (see 1. above)
|is a prescription for endless futile jaw-jaw (or rather tap-tap here).

Exactly.  And by *that* criterion the CR *does* understand, no matter how
it is constituted.

So, if I am to be more open to Searle's conclusions I will need his
alternative criterion for 'understanding' spelled out in a way that allows
me to apply it, and allows me to critique it.  (Even if I could apply it,
I might choose not to if I felt it was inadequate in some way).
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)



