From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga Wed Feb 26 12:53:58 EST 1992
Article 3958 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3958 sci.philosophy.tech:2170
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!sdd.hp.com!wupost!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!sunic!liuida!c89ponga
>From: c89ponga@odalix.ida.liu.se (Pontus Gagge)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb23.225938.17078@ida.liu.se>
Date: 23 Feb 92 22:59:38 GMT
References: <43686@dime.cs.umass.edu> <1992Feb22.234252.17095@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Feb23.044200.29383@mp.cs.niu.edu> <1992Feb23.015634.9079@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@ida.liu.se
Organization: CIS Dept, Univ of Linkoping, Sweden
Lines: 52

zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>In article <1992Feb23.044200.29383@mp.cs.niu.edu> 
>rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:

>>In article <1992Feb22.234252.17095@psych.toronto.edu> 
>>christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:

[The eternal Searle/Systems Reply debate continues]

>The fact that, in spite of having conducted interminable discussions on
>this subject, you've yet to come up with a conclusive and persuasive
>refutation of Searle's argument leaves me on the horns of a dilemma:

>(i) Either you and your coreligionists lack the requisite eristic
>*cleverness* needed in order to make a suitable impression on Searle's
>public; 

>or

>(ii) The lack is in your abject failure to *understand* the argument.

>In light of recent revelations of the vacuousness of the concepts of
>reference and understanding, I suspect that (ii) is the case.

There are of course three possibilites Mr. Zeleny ignores, namely that:

(iii) "Eristic cleverness" is lacking on Searle et al.'s side.

(iv) Mr. Zeleny & co' abjectly fail to understand the Systems Reply.

(v) Neither side understands the other's point of view.

As I personally am less inclined than Mr. Zeleny to believe everybody else
a fool (which is anyway rather an untenable position in this area, at
least *generally* speaking); I suspect (v) is more it.

OK, I will risk a continuation of the debate anyway. Mikhail, please help
me. *What* is it that is insufficiently "conclusive and persuasive"
about the Systems Reply? The "two minds in one cranium"? The implementation
relation between them? I know this has been hashed out before; but I
failed to see the pertinence of your objections. (Which is the reason:
your eristic ability being insufficient, or my being a bloody fool?)


--
/-------------------------+-------- DISCLAIMER ---------\
| Pontus Gagge            | The views expressed herein  |
| University of Link|ping | are compromises between my  |
|                         | mental subpersonae, and may |
| c89ponga@und.ida.liu.se | be held by none of them.    |
\-------------------------+-----------------------------/


