From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!pindor Mon May 25 14:06:50 EDT 1992
Article 5810 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: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <1992May21.164600.2622@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <60668@aurs01.UUCP> <6699@skye.ed.ac.uk> <6862@pkmab.se> <6729@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 21 May 1992 16:46:00 GMT

In article <6729@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
......
>Who says I have to agree with their definitions?
>
>Would they just agree with mine?  I rather doubt it.
>
How do you know till you try? You are not afraid of criticism, are you?
And besides we might at last have an idea where you stand. As you can see from
few other posts, somehow many people (me including) seem to read your position
differently to your intentions. So perhaps a definition might help.
....
>
>>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.
>
A good example of a difficulty of figuring out where you stand. Above you 
suggest that you do not want to give a definition (say of understanding)
because others might not agree with it. Here you give another reason.
I see a possibility that you do not want to provide a definition, because you
are afraid that it might be accepted and you will be stuck with it (i.e you
will not be able to say: 'Look, that is not what I meant", ;-)).

>-- jd


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


