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 15:49:49 EDT 1992
Article 5496 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: Games (was Re: Categories: bounded or graded?)
Message-ID: <6690@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 8 May 92 21:12:10 GMT
References: <1992Apr28.230052.7394@spss.com> <6649@skye.ed.ac.uk> <OZ.92May5014616@ursa.sis.yorku.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 16

In article <OZ.92May5014616@ursa.sis.yorku.ca> oz@ursa.sis.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:
>jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>
>
>   		... It's very difficult to come up with
>   definitions that can't be "messed up", but that doesn't mean
>   we never know what we're talking about.
>
>But that also doesn't mean we do know even if it appears so, which
>as you so conveniently ignore, is the exact reason why Searle gets
>so much milage out of his miraculous gedankenexperiment.

Of course, people who disagree with Searle would like it to be
the case that no one has good reasons for agreeing with him.
But they really ought to try to show that Searle gets so much
milage for bad reasons, rather than merely asserting it.


