From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tarpit!osceola.cs.ucf.edu!news Tue Nov 26 12:31:13 EST 1991
Article 1471 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!tarpit!osceola.cs.ucf.edu!news
>From: clarke@next1 (Thomas Clarke)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Chinese Room Variant
Message-ID: <1991Nov20.140555.4381@osceola.cs.ucf.edu>
Date: 20 Nov 91 14:05:55 GMT
References: <1991Nov18.171828.7975@spss.com>
Sender: news@osceola.cs.ucf.edu (News sysetm)
Organization: University of Central Florida
Lines: 21

In article <1991Nov18.171828.7975@spss.com> markrose@spss.com (Mark  
Rosenfelder) writes:
> Thomas Clarke writes:
> >>>That is, the bare rules of computation plus any finite set of additional 
> >>>usage/correspondence rules are not sufficient for an understanding of  
number. 
> to which I respond:
> >>What is sufficient, then?  An infinite set of rules?  Or, if something else
> >>entirely is needed, what is it?
> 
> Since Mr. Clarke did not respond to my question, 
>
I guess I took your question in a rhetorical sense:  a statement of a question  
that needs to
be answered, a topic for further research.

Briefly, my intuition is that one understands number when one has common sense  
about arithmetic.  
The problems of defining and implementing common sense are well known.

Still scratching his head. - Thomas Clarke


