Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!ucsd!nosc!humu!uhccux!lee From: lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <3312@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu> Date: 22 Feb 89 13:05:33 GMT References: Organization: University of Hawaii Lines: 21 From article , by harnad@elbereth.rutgers.edu (Stevan Harnad): " ... " There are two senses of "understand," a subjective and an objective " one... No, there aren't. If there were, the one could not serve as antecedent for the other in identity-of-sense anaphora, as in 'He understands, and I do, too'. " I can be WRONG (very wrong) about (2) [objective] but not about " (1) [subjective]. ... If this were so, such a construction as 'I thought I understood, but I was wrong' would be self-contradictory. " And I am not a philosopher. Pardon me if I implied that only philosophers do second-rate linguistics. Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu