From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Tue Mar 24 09:58:16 EST 1992
Article 4687 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: Definition of understanding
Message-ID: <6482@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 23 Mar 92 20:27:21 GMT
References: <1992Feb24.231735.4404@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6307@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Mar2.181615.23245@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 25

In article <1992Mar2.181615.23245@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>In article <6307@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <1992Feb24.231735.4404@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:

>>>Hanard's trick obscures totally the fact that the story
>>>can be understood a different levels.

>>One thing that is hard to understand is why you think understanding
>>in one sense answers a question about uynderstanding in another.

>It looks like you misunderstood (:-() what I was trying to say. I am trying to
>say that there are different senses in which we use the word 'understanding'
>(you seem to agree on this, right?) and, in some sense of the word' a story
>is understood by CR even though it does not understand the literal meaning of 
>the words 'hamburger' etc.

Sure, a sense, but not the sense used in Searle's argument.

>[...] expecting CR to have 'understanding' in all aspects
>is unrealistic. However, claiming as Searle does, that it has 'zero 
>understanding' is an emotional stance.

By "zero understanding" Searle does not mean "no understanding in
any sense of the word `understand'".  He means none of a particular
kind of understanding.


