[Wittrs] Re: Focusing on the Made-Up Muddle
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 21:57:28 -0000
Hi Stuart,
I'm done debating with you. But though done, and maybe well done as in cooked,
I want to comment on your:
"By "more of the same" let's be clear. What I have in mind is a more robust
system consisting of the same types of processes but doing lots more things and
operating interactively. Essentially I am proposing a CR that is more like a
brain, i.e., capable of running processes that do the kinds of things brains
do."
Well, that is not inconsistent with Searle's position. Why the hell might you
think it is? Well, because you can't grasp a few distinctions Searle makes,
that's all.
Strong AIers got in trouble when thinking that computation adds another causal
element to the system. Functional properties don't add a thing.
In our debate you have been conflating computational properties with 1st-order
physical properties.
The system repliers are on the right track. It's just that they have a dilemma
if they want to retain the idea that computation adds another causal element to
the system. If it's supposed to, then we can run a CR and see that the idea
doesn't pan out. If it's supposed to because computational properties add
1st-order causal properties to the system in virtue of computational (and not
just brute physical) complexity, then one is selling something other than
strong AI, at least as spelled out by Searle.
Perhaps Searle created a strawman? Well, in the target article one sees that
he didn't. Maybe he wasn't to take some things seriously? What? Cognitive
science is ultimately idle tea-table amusemsent?
My contention is that you're seriously confused to the point of spelling out a
position that you agree with which is in upshot not a position that Searle is
arguing against in the CR.
It's like Gordon's proposal that the CR is not UTM equivalent. But it is.
So he proposes a "Language Room" where the humunculus has no understanding of
language whatsoever. But what the hell for? Presumably to change the subject
if the subject was the CR.
So, sup!
Again, this is a last-like response. I wanted to make sure that you might one
day see that it's okay to have a position such as Searle's which is not grossly
botched by those who can't read Searle clearly.
I think your charge that Searle is muddled just comes from a muddle you made to
make the muddle.
But go ahead and keep at it with Joe--and maybe some alter-egos too. I'll
shake my head from a distance without disturbing your trains of thought.
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
