From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Mon Mar  9 18:33:27 EST 1992
Article 4098 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb27.224043.4143@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Feb25.183336.13258@oracorp.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 22:40:43 GMT

In article <1992Feb25.183336.13258@oracorp.com> daryl@oracorp.com writes:

>Searle's response to the Systems Reply proves one thing, mainly that
>Searle doesn't understand what a system is. He seems to be assuming
>that there is a one-to-one correspondence between "systems" and
>"physical objects" (of course, this mistake was encouraged by whoever
>made the original Systems Reply when he talked about "slips of paper,
>etc.") What Searle's thought experiment shows is that, assuming the
>Systems Reply is correct, a human brain can simultaneously implement
>more than one system. (I suppose that this gets back to the "Multiple
>Personality Disorder" thread.)

OK, so what counts as a system?  Is my calculus understanding located in
a separate system ("Well, gosh, *I* don't understand this differential, but
my *calculus* system does?").  What kind of separation do you need?     

- michael




