From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Apr  7 23:22:36 EDT 1992
Article 4753 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <6529@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 26 Mar 92 21:44:00 GMT
References: <SMAILL.92Mar11180313@lomond.aisb.ed.ac.uk> <6514@skye.ed.ac.uk> <SMAILL.92Mar25130113@sin.aisb.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 31

In article <SMAILL.92Mar25130113@sin.aisb.ed.ac.uk> smaill@aisb.ed.ac.uk (Alan Smaill) writes:

>However, the issue of the relation between third-person ascription of
>mental attitudes ("she believes/understands X", and first-person
>ascription ("I believe/understand X") is something that any convincing
>account of how we achieve "meaning" should tackle.  Absolutely
>privileging the first-person version seems to me to get this
>relationship wrong.

But there ought to be an asymmetry.  A theory that had people
treating themselves from a third-person point of view would be wrong.

>So, for having beliefs, the third person meaning involves acting
>in a way consistent with the belief, eg trying to achieve goals
>in ways that assume the truth of the belief. Now, if I consistently
>tell myself and others over a period that I believe X, but achieve
>my goals in ways that assume not X, could someone persuade me that
>I had been wrong about believing X through this period, by pointing
>out the inconsistency between my actions and my stated belief?

Well, how, for instance?  Something like: "You say you believe
in God, but I never see you pray, or go to church"?  Or: "you 
say you believe planes are safe, but you never fly"?

And is this about (simple) beliefs or beliefs about beliefs?

In any case, I don't think this sort of thing would apply in
general to anyone who was running the Chinese Room and claimed
not to understand Chinese.

-- jeff


