From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:35:57 EST 1992
Article 4329 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Mar5.141610.20612@oracorp.com> <1992Mar5.201538.1251@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Mar6.145636.13539@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Message-ID: <1992Mar6.220606.22225@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Fri, 6 Mar 1992 22:06:06 GMT

In article <1992Mar6.145636.13539@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <1992Mar5.201538.1251@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:

>>However, I *do* think that this example does show how much we rely on
>>interpretation of computer behaviour in assigning meaning to it.  Many
>
>Since you are in psychology department, you should know only too well how much
>we rely on interpretation of other people's behaviour in assigning meaning to
>what they say.
>How do you establish a meaning of what someone says? It is YOUR interpretation
>of what this person means, or is there a better way?

This is *not* what is being discussed, but rather, how *you* assign meaning
to what *you* say.  This is certainly *not* a matter of other people's
interpretations.  You *know* what you mean.  You may be wrong (according)
to other people), but you *know* what you mean.  To deny this is to be
ideologically anaesthetized. 


- michael



