Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!hplabs!hpl-opus!hplchm!curry
From: curry@hplchm.HP.COM (Bo Curry)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Semantics (was: Question on Chinese Room Argument)
Message-ID: <280002@hplchm.HP.COM>
Date: 3 Mar 89 02:55:45 GMT
References: <6451@saturn.ucsc.edu>
Organization: HP Labs Chemical Systems Dept, Palo Alto
Lines: 22

Stevan Harnad writes:

>I've always thought this reasoning was quite easy to understand, but from
>the fact that very few people have given me any objective evidence that
>they've understood it, I've concluded that it must be difficult to
>understand. Maybe by trying to put it slightly differently each time,
>tailoring it to the latest misunderstanding, I'll succeed in making it
>understood eventually...
>-- 
Don't you think this is a bit pompous?  The argument is perfectly well
understood.  It's just not convincing (not to say wrong).
By repeating yourself over and over, with minor changes in wording, 
and consistently ignoring or reinterpreting points made by others, 
you have succeeded in convincing me that you believe your own argument.  
Whether or not you *understand* it, I obviously cannot say.
By your own criteria, *you* are in no position to determine whether anyone
else understands it.  Or are you possibly (implicitly)
conceding that an Objective test of understanding is less of a
secondary issue than you like to admit?

	Bo "maybe he's just manipulating symbols" Curry
        curry%hplchm@hplabs.HP.COM