[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shift.
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 21 Feb 2010 00:52:13 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
<snip>
>
>
> So you're not up for even a little challenge to what I think are readings of
> Searle which are uninformed by his writings? That's just not playing this
> internet game is it? Or is it to beat a dead horse? What horse? and on.
>
The problem, Budd, is we've been all over this before. You don't really make
arguments, you mainly deny and assert and I know what you deny and assert
because I've read it all before on other lists and even a little on this one.
For me the "Internet game" is about discussing the issues and exploring the
ideas, including arguing competing positions when appropriate. What I'm not
interested in anymore is being told what I've read or not read, or that I can't
understand what you think you understand. If and when you actually make a case
and it is something new, I suppose I will play again. But for now all you've
given us is more claims about all the things you've already told us you've told
me, etc.
> Indeed, you should have a condensed paper ready at hand given all the time
> you have spent making sure you know what Searle is saying first hand. You
> could even refer to it after having posted it. And I would read it. If
> you've a favorite post number you wish to direct me to, I'll appreciate it,
> Stuart.
>
You already know all the things I've said, as do I. At this point I am still
willing to say it again under certain conditions but just repeating the same
arguments to you and then getting back, in response, the same old assertions
from you that I allegedly don't understand what you understand, without any
basis for that, is a waste of both our times.
I will note this, however: In that last post of yours you said there was more
to functional computationalism than "Dennett's strong AI". It might bear some
consideration that not so long ago you were asserting on this list that
Dennett's thesis didn't contradict Searle's thesis of "strong AI" because it
wasn't "SH/HW" but something else. In other words your position was that
Dennett wasn't opposing Searle's "strong AI" at all, even when both he and
Searle said he was.
You borrowed that from our friend PJ on the Analytic list but it was wrong then
and wrong when you presented it on this list and the evidence is found in your
own reference to Dennett's strong AI". If Searle's Chinese Room Argument is
against the thesis of "strong AI" and Dennett's thesis is about "strong AI"
then Searle IS arguing with Dennett's thesis as much as with any other thesis
of "strong AI", say the Robot Reply". Of course, if Dennett's thesis offers a
convincing way that consciousness could be accounted for via AI, then both he
and Searle cannot be right since Searle's point is to deny what he calls
"strong AI" as a possibility.
> I recall trying to get you to read the target article six years ago and I
> distinctly recall you responding in at least two ways:
>
> 1. No need to consult the target article for motivations of the premises
> since he lists his summary CRA independently (elsewhere) than the target
> article.
>
> [and then we went on and on about justifying the premises! And then I had to
> repeat that reading the target article might just be what the doctor ordered]
>
> 2. No need to read Searle further once one has found the flaws you claimed to
> have found.
>
My points at the time dealt with the argument as presented in several different
iterations to which we both had access and could review. If you believe there
is something still missing from the context all you need to do is quote and
link to it. I'm always willing to consider new information. But saying I should
read X (or Y or Z) isn't an argument in itself. (Moreover, as I recall I did
read the cited text at some point but, again, that's neither here nor there. A
discussion like this must be about the merits, not about superfluous intentions
of the author. After all, if the CRA is right or wrong is not dependent on what
Searle intended since everyone who makes an argument in good faith intends it
to be right.)
> [and then I went on to question your ability to read English,
THIS is why I don't want to debate with you. THAT is NOT an argument. It is an
insult. I can deal with them when needed but I don't need to if you cannot or
will not offer serious arguments along the way.
> not to mention wanting you to read his later APA address containing his
> (newer) reasons why strong AI is incoherent and not to be taken seriously
> enough to argue with
If you recall, I indicated having read that argument in his later book The
Mystery of Consciousness where he introduces it as a replacement for his older
syllogistic argument (the one everyone usually debates) and I gave my reasons
for thinking it wrongheaded then, too. Moreover, on Analytic we had a link to a
series of lectures given by Searle in which he reiterated that argument as
well. Once again, I would be willing to discuss the merits of it with you but
if, everytime I do so, you accuse me of not being able to read or of not
actually reading the argument, then we can have nothing to say to one another
about this!
--much like arguing for metaphysical realism is difficult because there seem to
be no coherent formulations of the position which is supposed to contradict it;
like Putnam thought to come up with an argument against metaphysical realism
only to put forth a bad one (Cf. _The Many Faces of Realism_)]
>
>
> Anyway, I never took your criticisms seriously because you were putting words
> in Searle's mouth as a result of not having read him carefully, or so I still
> think.
>
As I said, if all you can do is insult without backing up or arguing for your
position, why should I engage with you here or anywhere on the subject? There
have been some on this list and elsewhere who have argued that I haven't read
him carefully or that I have misread him and I have always been willing to
respond to that if they can provide some text to back up their points. But you
don't seem prepared to do that. All you do is huff and puff about "SH/HW" and
how I can't read English, didn't read the things you claim to have read, can't
understand Searle, etc., etc. So why should I care if you "took" my "criticisms
seriously"? You have no basis for claiming not to do so except your own
personal denial grounded in some private sense you have that you REALLY
understand Searle while I do not. Well we all have our beliefs I suppose but
unless we can back up and support them there isn't anything to discuss on lists
like this or anywhere else for that matter.
> I thought I was being a perfect sport for continuing my side of the argument.
>
> I'll understand though if you don't want to get super direct and cherry pick
> one issue at a time. It can be irritatingly difficult.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Budd
>
My position is what it has long been. If you make a case that goes beyond
asserting I'm an ignorant illiterate, etc., I shall be glad to consider and
respond to it. But if you persist in empty insults, I'm not interested.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
