[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 30 Jan 2010 21:00:53 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
>
>
> > Well, it turns out that you haven't read that target article either!
>
> Well thanks. I always thought that we were supposed to approach
> debating in the spirit of the principle of charity
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_charity> . I really don't
> see the need for that kind of insult.
Look, if I could correctly point out that you haven't read the target article,
that might encourage you to go read it. And you should really see the need for
that kind of advice if you would like to get a little deeper into the issue.
And if you want a condensed version of all the possible criticisms of Searle
that Stuart might make, I can guarantee you that they (the sane ones at least
which don't depend on an inability to read English) will be found in
Armstrong's paper written for the book, _John Searle and His Critics_. And
you're welcome. See? No insults really. ;-)
>
>
> > Searle refuted strong AI ...
>
> Yet many respected people say that Searle did not refute anything.
And they might be right because it makes no sense to say that someone has
refurted a thesis which is incoherent--for mavens!
>
>
> > That misses the whole point of the original target article which
> > focusses on the exact thesis of strong AI.
>
> Before that article appeared, there was no "thesis of strong AI". The
> term "strong AI" was coined by Searle, and some would say it was
> introduced as a strawman that Searle could attempt to knock down.
This is where I point out that you definitely haven't read the target article.
How do I know? By the following counterfactual: If you read the target
article, you would know exactly who actually held the position coined as Strong
AI.
>
>
> > The point about the program ex hypothesii instantiated by the wall
> > is designed to show that a systems reply changes the subject to the
> > point where we no longer have a thesis (strong AI was supposeed to
> > be a candidate) for distinguishing minds from nonminds.
>
> I don't think Searle even mentioned the Systems Reply in his discussion
> about wordstar on the wall (in his book "The Rediscovery of the Mind").
>
> Regards,
> Neil
Right. The point about the wall has to do with the rather whorish position
known as functionalism--Chalmers exposes her undersides by seeing panspychism
as a consequence of computational functionalism as a theory of mind.
In the target article, "Minds, Brains and Programs," the systems reply simply
changes the subject.
Btw, it is not an insult to point out that you haven't read it. The strong AI
thesis was definitely held, contra your claim above, and you would be disabused
of your mistake by reading it.
If you're that interested, anyway. And you're welcome to be.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
