On 8/19/2012 12:51 PM, Stephen P. King wrote:
I understand that 2+2 = 4.
I still cannot explain how and why I understand "2+2 = 4".
"2+2=4" is easy.
"I understand 2+2=4" is quasi infinitely more complex.
As I see it, the quasi-infiitely more complex aspect of "I understand that 2+2=4"
follows, at least, from the requirement that many entities capable of making such
statements can point to examples of 2+2=4 and communicate about such statements with
each other however far away in space and time they are from each other. We can ignore
the fact that there is a collection of entities to whom the statement "I understand that
2+2=4" has a meaning. You need to get a grip on the nature of meaningfulness. Searle has
tried to do this with his Chinese Room idea but failed to communicate the concept. :_(
Maybe Bruno will introduce a new modality to his logic Up="Understands p". :-)
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at