From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl Mon Mar  9 18:34:14 EST 1992
Article 4170 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!usc!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!psinntp!scylla!daryl
>From: daryl@oracorp.com
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Feb29.145019.22183@oracorp.com>
Organization: ORA Corporation
Date: Sat, 29 Feb 1992 14:50:19 GMT
Lines: 20

Bill Skaggs writes:

>>Although I agree with Hofstadter that Searle's arguments are wrong, I
>>also agree with you that Hofstadter's reply is worthless (if you have
>>characterized it accurately). [ . . . ]

>  Daryl,
>	Most of what you write is very perceptive and cogent,
>and very well written, but I am seriously disappointed by this
>one.  Hofstadter's reply was *not* accurately characterized, and
>you shouldn't criticize what you haven't read.

I tried to make an escape clause for myself by saying "if you have
characterized it accurately", but I guess I can't get off the hook
that easily. I didn't mean to be criticizing Hofstadter, but the
argument that Chris Green presented (and claimed was Hoftstadter's).

Daryl McCullough
ORA Corp.
Ithaca, NY


