Newsgroups: comp.ai.nat-lang,alt.cyberspace,alt.internet,alt.net-scandal,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!uunet!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!jeff
From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Subject: Re: Eliza (was Re: Are there non-humans lurking on Internet/Usenet?)
Message-ID: <D3son8.Ao8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: usenet@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software)
Nntp-Posting-Host: bute-alter.aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
References: <jqbD3pB6w.94K@netcom.com> <3hc1uf$53l@mp.cs.niu.edu> <jqbD3r784.KE4@netcom.com>
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 1995 17:30:44 GMT
Lines: 15
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai.nat-lang:2863 comp.ai:27347 comp.ai.philosophy:25426

In article <jqbD3r784.KE4@netcom.com> jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter) writes:

>>We cannot always take dictionary definitions very seriously.
>
>Of course.  My point is that we cannot take unstated "intuitive" notions of
>what words mean, and any conclusions drawn from them, very seriously either.
>If you won't tell me what "understanding" means in terms by which I can
>determine whether something understands, I will find all your conclusions
>about whether something does or does not understand to be mysterious and
>unsupported. 

Are you asking for a definition that provides you with a test that
you can then apply to entities to see whether they understand?  If
so that begs the question in favor of "operational" definitions
that can be evaluated from a 3rd-person point of view.
