From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Tue Apr  7 23:21:57 EDT 1992
Article 4688 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar24.171056.21762@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Feb24.231735.4404@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6307@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar2.181615.23245@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6482@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Tue, 24 Mar 1992 17:10:56 GMT

In article <6482@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>In article <1992Mar2.181615.23245@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
...
>>say that there are different senses in which we use the word 'understanding'
>>(you seem to agree on this, right?) and, in some sense of the word' a story
>>is understood by CR even though it does not understand the literal meaning of 
>>the words 'hamburger' etc.
>
>Sure, a sense, but not the sense used in Searle's argument.
>
Since you seem to agree that the word 'understanding' can be used in different
senses, why are you so much opposed to specifying explicitly in which sense
it is being used in the particular context (i.e. defining what you mean by
'understanding')?

>>[...] expecting CR to have 'understanding' in all aspects
>>is unrealistic. However, claiming as Searle does, that it has 'zero 
>>understanding' is an emotional stance.
>
>By "zero understanding" Searle does not mean "no understanding in
>any sense of the word `understand'".  He means none of a particular
>kind of understanding.

What is this 'particular kind of understanding'?
('good old-fashioned' wouldn't do :-))
-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


