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.

You can't *discover* that the brain is a digital computer. You can only *interpret* the brain as a digital computer.

Materialism ends up denying the existence of any irreducible subjective qualitative states of sentience or awareness.

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.

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

The problem posed by indirect speech acts is the problem of how it is possible for the speaker to say one thing and mean that but also to mean something else.

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."