From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!news.bbn.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Mon Mar  9 18:32:47 EST 1992
Article 4035 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!news.bbn.com!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb26.082540.9185@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 26 Feb 92 13:25:39 GMT
References: <1992Feb25.191102.16801@oracorp.com>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 57
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Feb25.191102.16801@oracorp.com> 
daryl@oracorp.com writes:

>Mikhail Zeleny writes (in response to Neil Rickert):

MZ:
>> 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:

DMC:
>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.

The situation here is rather analogous to the Searle-Derrida confrontation
over the pragmatics issue, with one conspicuous exception: the AI side has
no rhetorical genius like Derrida, who would cover up its substantive
failure with a dazzling verbal performance.  In short, anyone who
understands the issue (say, those who take `semantics' in its standard
sense) is at the very least deeply troubled by Searle's points.

You might ask Chalmers why he doesn't make an official published statement
of his "crumbly cakes" answer...

>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.

Get a dose of reality.  The AI research program has failed many times over;
one department after another seeks to find refuge in a name change (does
"cognitive science" really sound any better?); when was the last time you
saw an horde of investors get hardons at the mere mention of expert systems?

It seems that the powers that be have surely been converted.

>Daryl McCullough
>ORA Corp.
>Ithaca, NY


`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


