From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Wed Feb 26 12:54:40 EST 1992
Article 4024 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb25.191102.16801@oracorp.com>
Date: 25 Feb 92 19:11:02 GMT
Article-I.D.: oracorp.1992Feb25.191102.16801
Organization: ORA Corporation
Lines: 22

Mikhail Zeleny writes (in response to Neil Rickert):

> 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:

It depends on who you think has the burden of proof: Searle, to prove
his point, or Searle's opponents, to prove that he didn't prove his
point.

I think it is obvious that *Searle's* argument isn't "conclusive and
persuasive", since it doesn't conclusively persuade anyone (except for
those who already agreed with the conclusion; Searle's
"coreligionists" to use your word). Is it necessary to *prove* that I
don't find it persuasive? At the worst, it is a tie, Searle and his
opponents have both failed to persuade the faithful of the other side.
No conversions were made, no souls were saved. Alas.

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


