From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue May 12 15:49:44 EDT 1992
Article 5488 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: The Systems Reply I
Message-ID: <6685@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 May 92 18:18:39 GMT
References: <524@tdatirv.UUCP> <6639@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May5.192729.26679@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 27

In article <1992May5.192729.26679@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <6639@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <524@tdatirv.UUCP> sarima@tdatirv.UUCP (Stanley Friesen) writes:
>>>
>>>That is also my interest (in this group).  But what is understanding?
>>>What is it that we humans have that we are looking for in computers?
>>>Until we know that we cannot answer the question.
>>
>>What interests me in this is whether or not computers can understand,
>>and not in whether or not I can explain what understanding is.
>>Other people may have different interests.
>>
>Do you mean that it interests you whether or not computers can understand
>without being able to explain what understanding is? 

Why should _I_ have to explain to you what understanding is?

Why don't you explain it to me, for example?  You seem to think
an explanation is needed.

>You say that you refuse to play 'definition game', but you then play 'refusal
>to define' game.

I don't refuse to play it because it's a _game_.  So there's no
inconsistency.

-- jd


