Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!csd4.milw.wisc.edu!lll-winken!uunet!mcvax!ukc!strath-cs!glasgow!gilbert
From: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Where might CR understanding come from (if it exists)
Message-ID: <2599@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk>
Date: 16 Mar 89 13:01:25 GMT
References: <Mar.4.00.45.52.1989.4435@elbereth.rutgers.edu> <9560@megaron.arizona.edu> <2568@crete.cs.glasgow.ac.uk> <4079@xyzzy.UUCP>
Reply-To: gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
Organization: Comp Sci, Glasgow Univ, Scotland
Lines: 22

In article <4079@xyzzy.UUCP> throopw@agarn.dg.com (Wayne A. Throop) writes:
>> gilbert@cs.glasgow.ac.uk (Gilbert Cockton)
>> about systems is the attributes of the whole which CANNOT be attributes
>> of the parts, not true here I'm afraid.
>
>Why isn't it true here?  I'm under the impression that it IS true here.

I mustn't be clear.
Usually, a system possesses attributes which no part *CAN* possess,
and thus does not possess.

Here, the part Searle can possess understanding.

The issue is one of attributes common to a/some part(s) and the
emergeant system.  I don't know an example where a system has
attributes that a part CAN have, but does not have.

Equilibrium, for example, can never be an attribute of a part (unless
it is a system).  As Searle is not a system, this doesn't apply.
-- 
Gilbert Cockton, Department of Computing Science,  The University, Glasgow
	gilbert@uk.ac.glasgow.cs <europe>!ukc!glasgow!gilbert