I will argue that in the literal sense the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing.

Whatever is referred to must exist. Let us call this the axiom of existence.

We often attribute 'understanding' and other cognitive predicates by metaphor and analogy to cars, adding machines, and other artifacts, but nothing is proved by such attributions.

In many cases it is a matter for decision and not a simple matter of fact whether x understands y; and so on.

There are clear cases in which "understanding" literally applies and clear cases in which it does not apply; and these two sorts of cases are all I need for this argument.

Our tools are extensions of our purposes, and so we find it natural to make metaphorical attributions of intentionality to them; but I take it no philosophical ice is cut by such examples.

I will argue that in the literal sense the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing.

An utterance can have Intentionality, just as a belief has Intentionality, but whereas the Intentionality of the belief is intrinsic the Intentionality of the utterance is derived.

Where conscious subjectivity is concerned, there is no distinction between the observation and the thing observed.

I want to block some common misunderstandings about "understanding": In many of these discussions one finds a lot of fancy footwork about the word "understanding."

Where questions of style and exposition are concerned I try to follow a simple maxim: if you can't say it clearly you don't understand it yourself.

Berkeley had a liberal element in the student body who tended to be quite active. I think that's in general a feature of intellectually active places.

My car and my adding machine understand nothing: they are not in that line of business.

I want to block some common misunderstandings about 'understanding': In many of these discussions one finds a lot of fancy footwork about the word 'understanding.'

There are clear cases in which 'understanding' literally applies and clear cases in which it does not apply; and these two sorts of cases are all I need for this argument.

Where consciousness is concerned the appearance is the reality.

You do not understand your own tradition if you do not see it in relation to others.

The Intentionality of the mind not only creates the possibility of meaning, but limits its forms.

I have a 6-year-old, and his thing is to turn on Radio Disney in the car, and I get such an allergic reaction to listening to that music and the context into which it falls. I'm really working on him about that.

Doorman - a genius who can open the door of your car with one hand, help you in with the other, and still have one left for the tip.

I miss Saturday morning, rolling out of bed, not shaving, getting into my car with my girls, driving to the supermarket, squeezing the fruit, getting my car washed, taking walks.

I like to sing in the car with the windows rolled down and hair blowing all over my face.

I'd really like to get the girl, shoot the gun, drive the car, have fun. I even have these kind of action dreams, where I'm the action guy.

When you're in the car, how well you do is down to you and you alone-no band, no management, no marketing.

I will never have a drink and get behind the wheel of a car. It's not illegal to drink and drive, but there becomes a certain point where it does become a crime.

So I was getting into my car, and this bloke says to me 'Can you give me a lift?' I said 'Sure, you look great, the world's your oyster, go for it.'

I never had the high-paying job or the company car. It took me over a decade to pay off my student loans. I never had to worry about where to dock my yacht to reduce my taxes.

My wife wants sex in the back of the car and she wants me to drive.

Well, honey, I had the million dollar houses, I had the car, I had the horse, I had the barn; I had everything. Was I set free? I didn't even know what that meant.

I was encouraged to hear that GM has made great progress on the hydrogen car.

Should we have background checks, waiting periods? To drive a car you have to pass a test that shows you know how to drive your car safely, you should have to do the same thing with guns.

Many highly intelligent people are poor thinkers. Many people of average intelligence are skilled thinkers. The power of a car is separate from the way the car is driven.

But once you have satisfied your material needs, which I think every wealth creator should - the house, the car, the plane, the boat - what comes next?

The hydrogen powered car, with its high fuel mileage and zero emission rate, is just one example of the products under development that will help increase our energy independence.

There's nothing wrong with the car except that it's on fire.

Obviously the first sentiment is disappointment that we didn't get the car home and more disappointment that at the time that it stopped the car was in the lead.

In 1950, when the Giants signed me, they gave me $15,000. I bought a 1950 Mercury. I couldn't drive, but I had it in the parking lot there, and everybody that could drive would drive the car. So it was like a community thing.

I like to put on hardcore when I have to clean my apartment, which I hate to do, but it's motivational. I like old heavy metal when I'm outside working on my car. Music has definite functions for me.

(On seeing a former lover for the first time in years) I thought I told you to wait in the car.

I really like listening to music in my car.

As soon as I began to earn what might be called fairly large sums, I bought a car and began to explore the country around New York.

I've tried everything other than jumping out of a plane, but nothing gives you an adrenaline rush like racing a car.

The car business is a lot like football. In football, you have to win once a week. In the car business, you have to win every day.

I was an economics major in college, and every summer after school, I would drive my car from California, from Claremont men's college at the time, to New York. And I worked on Wall Street.

I was 16 years old, driving to LA, and sleeping in my car, just trying to make it happen.

The car is a character in the piece - I've never liked the car, I submitted to it's objectionable popularity.

Every time I copy something, I can draw it for the rest of my life. But research is so painful - I mean just opening up a magazine looking for a picture of a car or looking out the window looking for a car is just hard!

One morning, about four o'clock, I was driving my car just about as fast as I could. I thought, Why am I out this time of night? I was miserable, and it came to me: I'm falling in love with somebody I have no right to fall in love with.

When the car's going well, I purr like a kitten.