From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon May 25 14:06:39 EDT 1992
Article 5789 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!csd.unb.ca!morgan.ucs.mun.ca!nstn.ns.ca!news.cs.indiana.edu!mips!darwin.sura.net!europa.asd.contel.com!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <6729@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 20 May 92 21:20:03 GMT
References: <60668@aurs01.UUCP> <6699@skye.ed.ac.uk> <6862@pkmab.se>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 32

In article <6862@pkmab.se> ske@pkmab.se (Kristoffer Eriksson) writes:
>In article <6699@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <60668@aurs01.UUCP> throop@aurs01.UUCP (Wayne Throop) writes:
>
>>> First, background definitions:
>>>
>>>   - Minds are processes
>>>   - Understanding is a property of mental processes
>>
>>I do not think "minds are processes" is noncontroversial.
>
>You said people were free to suggest their own definitions, in stead of
>demanding definitions from others. You did not say that the definitions
>had to be ones you would agree on, though.

Who says I have to agree with their definitions?

Would they just agree with mine?  I rather doubt it.

>Saying that some definition is noncontroversial is no argument

Oh, I thought we were trying to reach conclusions from agreed
premises.  My mistake.

>If you don't like the definitions given, and don't have any specific short-
>comings you want to point out in them, why don't you take your own advice
>and provide your own definitions? 

Because I have the rest of my life to live and better ways to
spend my time.

-- jd


