From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael Thu Apr 16 11:34:41 EDT 1992
Article 5113 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!michael
>From: michael@psych.toronto.edu (Michael Gemar)
Subject: Re: What counts as the "Right" functional organization?
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Apr14.064526.16723@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Apr14.142239.7807@psych.toronto.edu> <1992Apr14.181138.8475@mp.cs.niu.edu>
Message-ID: <1992Apr15.192007.22672@psych.toronto.edu>
Date: Wed, 15 Apr 1992 19:20:07 GMT

In article <1992Apr14.181138.8475@mp.cs.niu.edu> rickert@mp.cs.niu.edu (Neil Rickert) writes:
>In article <1992Apr14.142239.7807@psych.toronto.edu> christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green) writes:

>>Okay, then you'd better start specifying what counts as the "right" functional
>>organization lest you slip into a Davidsonian circle.  Actually, snarkiness
>>aside, I'm honestly interested in what might count as right and not right.
>
> I hope we can avoid discussions of "what is the right functional organization
>for belief (or understanding, etc)."  A discussion of "what is the right
>functional organization" might be ok.  But once you pin it to terms such
>as 'belief' or 'understanding' or 'semantics' you run into the problem of
>these terms not being sufficiently well defined, and the discussion will
>quickly degenerate into arguments about issues that are not really central.

"Not being sufficiently well defined" for what?  If you don't know what
the terms really mean, then how can you possibly claim to have a theory
of how they are produced?  How would you know when you are successful?

- michael




