Quote of the Day

[timelets]

154...
Just for once, don’t think of understanding as a ‘mental process’ at all! For that is the way of talking which confuses you. Instead, ask yourself: in what sort of case, in what kind of circumstances, do we say “Now I know how to go on”?

Denk doch einmal gar nicht an das Verstehen als ‘seelischen Vorgang’! a Denn das ist die Redeweise, die dich verwirrt. Sondern frage dich: in was für einem Fall, unter was für Umständen sagen wir denn “Jetzt weiß ich weiter”?

-- Wittgenstein. Investigations.

Comments

[juan_gandhi]

Ok, ok, we have to understand what does "understanding" mean.
Searle is probably the right person to explain.
Or not.

[timelets]

I think for Wittgenstein "understanding" doesn't have a meaning because it doesn't refer to a thing or specific activity. When somebody says "I understand" it means nothing until the person start participating in a particular language game. For example, when we ask somebody, "Do you understand X?", we mean "Are you ready to play?"

Searle does have a theory of mental states, which relates to intentionality. I think it's consistent with the Wittgenstein approach because it includes conditions of satisfaction, i.e. a success criteria within a particular language-game. Also, his Chinese Room argument shows that asking a computer "Do you understand?" is meaningless.