From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor Tue Mar 24 09:56:21 EST 1992
Article 4510 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!utgpu!pindor
>From: pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <1992Mar17.180459.19778@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCS Public Access
References: <1992Mar14.222241.21065@oracorp.com> <1992Mar16.232558.6291@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Tue, 17 Mar 1992 18:04:59 GMT

In article <1992Mar16.232558.6291@psych.toronto.edu> michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar) writes:
>
>To equate "magical" with "non-Functionalist" is to go a long way toward
>assuming your conclusion.  As far as I recall (without the context I may
>be wrong) I wasn't necessarily claiming that *you* believe we don't have
>understanding, I was merely (judging from the emphasis in the passage
>quoted) indicating that understanding is *not* a matter of interpretation,
>at least for humans.  It is not that we have understanding because our
>behaviour can be *interpreted* that way - we have understanding *regardless*
>of what interpretation an outside party gives. 
>
You couldn't be more wrong!
Haven`t you ever encountered a situation when A says something to B and
replies: 'If I understand you correctly ...' and only after A confirms what B 
says does B feel he/she 'understands'. You must have been in such situations
yourself. And the problem arises 'understanding what?' If someone says something
what you call 'a meaning' of his/her statement? What you understand by it or 
what other person understands? These are often very different things ! (that is
why a word 'misunderstanding' was invented :-().
Haven't you also been in situations when you were not sure whether
you understood something and you went to talk to knowledgable people (the ones
you thought understood the problem in question) to get a confirmation from them
that YOU understood? Problem of 'having understanding' is much less clear cut
then you are implying. And this applies also to understanding a language. This
can be seen very clearly when it is your second or third language.

>
>- michael
>
>


-- 
Andrzej Pindor
University of Toronto
Computing Services
pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca


