<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Jan 16, 2010, Damien Broderick wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">John Clark has just stated unequivocally that *he* at least thinks so. Yep, the fingers *understood* the calculation.</span></blockquote><br></div><div>You picked that example not me, and you must have thought that the finger had an atom of the supremely important property intelligence or you would not have used it as a specimen, so I don't see what's so shocking in me claiming that it also had an atom of a trivial and completely useless property called "understanding". Trivial and completely useless according to you and Gordon at least.</div><div><br></div><div>I just don't understand your position, not that it matters in the slightest of course.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark</div><br></body></html>