I've already commented on it. :)

Regarding the Philosophy teacher and how you stumped him.

First off I am tired, I just read that and I will say right now that my brain is working at about half capacity...so bear with me if I sound like a complete twit that has no understanding behind any concept other then the twisting meanings he is trying to interpret. Anywho...

You stated that if a person, say a man was in a room with a set guide on interpretting symbols of a specific type and to, essentially, understand what these symbols mean by using the guide handed to him. If my current brain power is comprehending this correctly then you are in fact stating quite clearly that for anybody outside of the room who sees or hears this person read/write these symbols in such a manner as to be understandable then 'he' would have then tricked the observers into thinking that he does indeed understand what he is speaking/writing.

Your arguement is quite clear if a little long winded. Stating firmly that because this man does have a rulebook/guide and he is able to interpret the words not through his own understanding but through the understanding gained from that guide at the very moment he needs to understand it. As such you grasped upon what is the exact nature of the human information structure relating to the clenching of information, the use of information and the structure thereof. As such you are correct in stating that Searle has only succeeded in justifying the belief that we, as human beings, understand nothing in the sense of which understanding something can be defined.

It is as you said, experience is key...and it would seem that my flimsy little brain has succeeded in nuclear meltdown from this long day at work so I'll simply stop here and end my agreement to your arguement with a link that I think might fit in with your arguement against the nature of the man and the symbols.

http://video.msn.com/dw.aspx?mkt=en-u s&from=truveo&vid=dc363353-08 4b-4c79-a03b-bcf90bd478ae

If I understand what you are saying correctly (with my currently limited amount of sleep and nobody to argue with around here...losing my touch I swear) then this man might post a question for you with your understanding of, well...understanding. I think you know what the question is and I think you'll have a very nice little answer to it. Anywho, enough of my babbling, I really need sleep...how can I tell? I keep forgetting what I've already typed and am at the point of not contemplating what I have already stated. That isn't good. Oh and screw you, year younger then me and you are able to come up with such an arguement on a subject with that of which an arguement should be well hidden under a wealth of information. Good job though. Really, it is.

-Tony-

Fk tired, probably just made myself out to be a idiot lmao.

Btw I completely agree with you on the audio submission that you review that goes by the name of "Hypno_Shooter [Box-killa]". I believe that the dear old RRC were a bit nice overall.

Cosmos:
"I believe that the dear old RRC were a bit nice overall"

Yeah, we were :P.

Seriously though, I agree with Blackhole too... Box-Killa asked for a review on it (he usually does that... sends PM's to random people asking "LOLZ REVIEW MAH AUDIOZ KTHXBAI") and he got the review he wanted. Then he called it retarded and went on the forums saying that Blackhole's stuff sucks, and making people agree with him that Blackhole's review was retarded.

I think he's not getting who the retard is...

Rant over XD.

Ah well. Glad to see you RRC guys have a soul. As for Blackhole's review...yeah well I could've been alot less nice then he was AND grabbed Wyldfyre1 and let him have a go. Then that guy would've been annoyed hehe.

Hoho.

As for those random PMs..somebody shoot him ;o.