From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke Mon Mar  9 18:34:31 EST 1992
Article 4195 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!caen!nic.umass.edu!dime!orourke
>From: orourke@unix1.cs.umass.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <44147@dime.cs.umass.edu>
Date: 2 Mar 92 14:20:58 GMT
References: <1992Feb29.145019.22183@oracorp.com> <1992Mar2.020841.21810@psych.toronto.edu>
Sender: news@dime.cs.umass.edu
Reply-To: orourke@sophia.smith.edu (Joseph O'Rourke)
Organization: Smith College, Northampton, MA, US
Lines: 18

In article <1992Mar2.020841.21810@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
>In article <1992Feb29.145019.22183@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:
>>I didn't mean to be criticizing Hofstadter, but the
>>argument that Chris Green presented (and claimed was Hoftstadter's).
>>
>Actually not. If you look back in the postings, I, too, was running off
>someone else's characterization of the Hofstadter-Dennett critique ...

I think what Daryl is referring to is your original characterization,
in <1992Feb22.234252.17095@psych.toronto.edu>:

>I have [Hofstadter & Dennett's reply] here in front of me and it 
>seems to boil down to "no human could ever memorize all those symbols 
>and rules."

I posted a fuller (and I think more accurate) description of Hofstadter's
argument, which included his argument that asking the man is not asking
the system.


