[Wittrs] Re: An Issue Worth [Really] Focusing On
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 23:25:34 -0000
I'm sorry, Budd, this is just a muddle.
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> Lastly, I'll comment on just a bit and let it rest.
>
> Stuart writes:
>
> "You presume something about syntax (that it's not being semantics excludes
> it from bringing semantics about) because of a certain way of thinking about
> semantics that you share with Searle and other dualists."
>
>
> So you say. But you are sadly mistaken. It's that computers don't even have
> syntax in the relevant sense.
Searle's later claim and more of a dud than the original.
> Also, it is that for Searle he's just coining the word "syntactical" to
> apply to the formality of running computer programs,
Omigod, you mean he's making it up!!! But then what's the point if it's all
about his particular stipulations? (For the record, I doubt he would agree with
you that he was just "coining" a term but I'm sure that will have no impact on
your thinking here.)
> and that includes his APA address which is dismissed by you so off-hand you
> can't be bothered with a close reading of Searle..
I would argue that I have read him very closely, more so than you have, in fact.
> Was it you or Parr who claimed to find a contradiction in Searle such that
> reading a word more of him would be a waste of time? It was you, and that
> was another dodge.
As I recall I said I'd read enough to assess his position which you kept
arguing demanded more and more reading and re-reading (as you have done more
recently with your infamous "target article"). I am reminded of a talmud
student I had occasion to argue with a long time ago who, when I said something
he had claimed was not to be found in the text of the Bible, he assured me that
I simply wasn't qualified to say what was there. As we were in a bookstore I
went to a bookshelf and took a Bible down but he demurred, saying I needed
years of study first. When I asked him how long he smiled and said I would have
to study for twenty years, maybe more, before I was qualified to actually
consider the text itself.
I replied that by then I would probably long since have forgotten the issue we
were discussing or, at best, simply have become so brainwashed that I would
cease questioning.
He smiled and nodded and said, so?
> The certain way of thinking I share with Searle is not dualist, nor can you
> intelligibly prove this.
I already have despite your denial. But I know of no chemical reagent test that
will reliably change color when in the presence of a dualist and so it all
comes down to what we admit to others and ourselves -- and to what we manage to
understand.
> All you can do is conflate what YOU think is syntax with physics.
I've addressed the question of what Searle means and what he says about syntax
many times before in these discussions. But it does no good in the face of
obdurate denial. Let others judge then, and each of us for him or herself.
> But when you do, you are sharing Searle's position AND disagreeing with him.
You picked this silliness up from PJ on Analytic. It is just as silly a claim
now as when he first advanced it.
> You only get to argue that he is wrong about computers--not that he's a
> dualist for so arguing.
The truth is, I don't know if he is wrong about what computers can do nor do I
actually claim he is. What I am arguing is that he is wrong about denying the
possibility that computers can do what brains do. There is an important
difference here.
> Indeed, he argues against strong AI because it itself has dualism built into
> it.
Apparently he did say something like that as we have seen on this list but that
is a reach, to be sure. Nevertheless it does look like advocates on both sides
of this divide tend to see dualism on the other. The question is whether either
side is right.
> Unless you conflate syntax with physics, that is, which, in upshot, amounts
> to Searle's position, again, again.
>
>
Nonsense, and nonsense again.
>
> Stuart gets around more:
>
> "There's no getting around this. Unless and until you see this, you will
> remain in the same place re: this argument, i.e., completely unable to fathom
> the important distinction between a system level property and a property
> associated with some constituent(s) of the system."
>
> You are seriously confused or just pissing against the wind because you're
> into that sort of thing..
I am certainly "pissing against the wind" where you are concerned!
> The point is that for Searle syntax doesn't add anything at the system level.
Except you earlier told us that "syntax" in his lexicon is self-defined by him
to mean whatever he means by it. So he is, then, in essence stipulating the
absence of this capability. How does that resolve anything really?
> Further, consciousness and semantics just are system level properties.
But Searle is confused about what that means. See his lapse vis a vis brains
compared to computers.
> If you want to say that Searle is wrong to think that syntax can't be a
> system level property, that is one thing. You can't argue from there that he
> doesn't view consciousness and semantics as system level properties of nonS/H
> systems.
See my point about his being in self-contradiction.
> It is simply you types who don't distinguish between S/H and nonS/H.
Assertion, nothing more.
> And to the extent that you don't, you end up with Searle's actual position
> anyway by conflating syntax with physics.
But nobody told Searle that Dennett is really in agreement with him and vice
versa???
> You end up with a Fregean sense of Searle
?
> but spelled out in a mode of presentation such that it sounds at odds with
> Searle. I'm that quick on the uptake.
>
>
No you're not.
>
> Lastly, Stuart avers without good argument AT ALL:
>
> > Searle is badly mistaken. The system repliers have it exactly right and
> > your boy Searle just misses the boat entirely.
> >
> > SWM
>
> You're a funny guy. Gordon too. And Neil for suggesting that Searle ought
> to have been arguing against weak AI as Searle understands it.. You [Stuart
> at least] accept his position with or without knowing it. Your argument
> about the third premise is just aweful and made up to distract attention. Or
> your attention to English is just not that good.
>
I know, I know, I'm such a dumkopf I can't read, can't write, can't even play a
decent drum!
> The system repliers are contradicting themselves, on one hand, and conceding
> Searle's point on the other.
>
They aren't and Searle's response to them is wholly inadequate.
> How do I know this? They conflate syntax with physics now compared to before
> when stating that it might be in virtue of the program that a system might
> understand a story.
More confusion.
> It turns out that the system repliers want to have it both ways but can't or
> cant. I'll let them have it Searle's way. It's funny that you don't see
> that the upshot of the systems reply is the very thesis of Searle--or it is a
> waffling between Searle's position and a position he showed to be incoherent.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Budd
>
>
Searle is so confused on this issue that it's almost painful to keep pointing
out the mistakes. So I'll leave it for now and go have dinner.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
