Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!udel!news.mathworks.com!news.bluesky.net!news.sprintlink.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.cac.psu.edu!news.pop.psu.edu!hudson.lm.com!godot.cc.duq.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!dbisna.com!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!psinntp!ncrgw2.ncr.com!ncrhub6!daynews!intruder!news
From: David E. Weldon, Ph.D. <David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM>
Subject: Re: Searle's Chinese Room refuted by Society of Mind
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: 149.25.61.42
Message-ID: <DA4uor.3HD@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com>
Sender: news@intruder.daytonoh.attgis.com (News administrative Login)
Reply-To: David.E.Weldon@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM (WELDOD)
Organization: AT&T Global Info Solutions
X-Newsreader: DiscussIT 2.0.1.2 for MS Windows [AT&T Software Products Division]
References: <DA2qqq.M6B@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 1995 22:34:03 GMT
Lines: 45


}==========Andrzej Pindor, 6/12/95==========
[set of arguments on the nature of (deep) understanding deleted]
}
}It depends how 'complete' you want to be. You are right that if we 
}take 
}'complete' literally, than this is a moot point. However, my intetion 
}was to 
}point out that there are limits to mutual understanding, due to 
}barriers in
}simulating mutual behavior. This applies to many social 
}situations, remember
}Marie Antoinette's "if they do not have bread, why don't they eat 
}cakes?"
}Her behavioral experience did not include being poor and 
}hungry.
}
Ah, come on!  "Her behavioral experience did not include being poor and
hungry." ????

If you are going to insist on defining things solely in terms of behavior,
then the above sentence is not only nonsensical, it is meaningless.  Let me
explain.  You juxtapose a behavioral clause and a concept clause.  In order to
be be meaningful, your sentence (in your frame of reference) would have to
read, "Her behavioral repetoire did not include poor or hungry behaviour
pattern sets."  Now it is meaningful in your terms because you have not
invoked any of those horrible ambiguous concepts.  Nevertheless it is still
nonsensical, since in order to grasp the intended meaning of the utterance,
you must include some means of linking poor and hungry behavioral patterns to
a notion (i.e., a concept) that poor and hungry behaviour patterns represent
something that will evoke sympathy for the entities that exhibited the
behaviour and disgust for the sentence utterer.

I assert that by focusing only on behaviour, you create a scientific wasteland
that eliminates 80 percent of the information that can help you "understand"
the object of investigation--in this case, the human behaver.  And I think
your example sentence is great testimony against your position.

Dave Weldon
}>
}>Mike Turton
}>turtom@rpi.edu
}>
}Andrzej

