From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima Wed Feb 26 12:53:21 EST 1992
Article 3903 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!olivea!uunet!tdatirv!sarima
>From: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <438@tdatirv.UUCP>
Date: 20 Feb 92 17:21:12 GMT
References: <1992Feb18.153833.10164@oracorp.com> <1992Feb18.200220.21192@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb19.013515.26133@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Feb19.172251.7320@psych.toronto.edu>
Reply-To: sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen)
Organization: Teradata Corp., Irvine
Lines: 14

In article <1992Feb19.172251.7320@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:
|The systems response one of the more intelligent ones, 
|although Searle replied to it in 1980 in BBS, and again in 1991 in 
|_Scientific American_. So far, I've never heard a good counter-reply.

Perhaps because we have yet to be convinced that Searle's counter to
the systems reply has any content.

My general reaction to it is "Huh?!? that makes no sense!"

How can I respond to something that seems to me to be nearly meaningless.
-- 
---------------
uunet!tdatirv!sarima				(Stanley Friesen)


