the replies, and that is the Robot Reply. In turn, I also found this to be the weakest of Searles counter replies. More specifically, I want to discuss the exemplification of the Robot Reply as expressed by Bridgeman. In terms of the three points of understanding, I feel this super robot satisfies them, but as I mentioned I do not find this sufficient for understanding. Take for example the idea of a banana. Someone says to you banana and you instantly refer to it in some manner. Perhaps you think of its sweet taste, or that it is rich in potassium, or maybe a visual of a yellow, oblong, curving, shape that is bespeckled with brown spots comes to you, or perhaps the memory of some bad experience you had with a banana once. The point is, that in some way you have referred to the banana. Now the super robot, with the addition of all its appendages and perceptual achievement, will also be able to refer in some manner to the banana. The question is, how? Well, Joi, you might respond, perhaps we can install the super robot with some type of random generator sequence that will pick one form of reference or another. Ah, ha, I will say, this is just my point. Our brain does not simply receive input strings, process them, and output strings, there is a very specific and nonrandom association going on that is based on the motivations and inclinations at that time. In other words, it is directly influenced by those hormonal levels, which Bridgeman is so eager to disregard. For instance, I may think, yum, a banana tastes very good, because I am hungry right then. At another moment, I might refer to a visual representation of the banana, because I am painting a still life, and banana will do well for my composition. So in turn my fourth point would be that understanding is hormonal and motivational specific, changing, perhaps even from moment to moment. In summary, I feel computational understanding can be achieved at a secondary l...
