From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman Tue Jan 28 12:16:28 EST 1992
Article 3054 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!usc!cs.utexas.edu!asuvax!ncar!noao!arizona!gudeman
>From: gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Intelligence Testing
Message-ID: <11775@optima.cs.arizona.edu>
Date: 23 Jan 92 11:01:39 GMT
Sender: news@cs.arizona.edu
Lines: 27

In article  <1992Jan22.203042.453@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> Andrzej Pindor writes:
]In article <11722@optima.cs.arizona.edu> gudeman@cs.arizona.edu (David Gudeman) writes:
]......
]>is your sense that is new.  "Understanding" implies an internal
]>self-awareness that is not observable outside of the entity who
]                        ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
]>understands.
]
]By this token, a coffe cup could have 'understanding' too, right?

Where in the above to I say anything that in any sense implies that a
coffee cup could have understanding?  The most you could glean from
the above is that if a coffee cup _did_ have understanding, then it
would have an internal self-awareness.

]On a more serious note - has it ever happened to you that you had this self-
]awareness of understanding and then you decided that you really did not
]understand the said problem? I am sure it did. Try to remeber now what made
]you to realise that you did not understand?

This is irrelevant.  I never said that the ability to answer questions
in humans cannot be used to judge understanding.  In fact, I
specifically said that it could.
--
					David Gudeman
gudeman@cs.arizona.edu
noao!arizona!gudeman


