[Wittrs] Re: SWM and Strong AI
- From: "J" <ubersicht@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:09:09 -0000
SWM,
> Neither short nor sweet, J.
Obviously, the excerpt wasn't short. I was referring to my own remarks, which
were indeed brief. And in my going out of my way to not only give you the
reference but to excerpt a good deal of it so you could read it in context as
you requested, I was doing you a favor.
A clarification of something misunderstood in our past exchanged. I am not in
the least an admirer of Searle. I find him wrong-headed on a number of points.
I am also not much a defender of the Chinese Room Argument.
When I said that I was indicating my disagreement with your reading of Searle
and of Strong AI so that you would stop bringing it up, I should have made
clear that I wanted you to stop bringing it up WITH ME. If you want to
criticize Searle (or anyone else) that's your business and I don't care either
way. But in bringing the topic into our exchanges, you seemed to be trying to
engage me in your ongoing discussion and I wanted you to know that you
shouldn't look to me for support on that subject (since I think you misread
him) or for debate (since I see debating you on the topic as completely
pointless).
Now, I am trying to be civil here, but I would like you to consider the
following:
1. You clearly discuss "dualism" quite a lot. You clearly think it's an
important issue. And the tenor of your remarks suggest you think it a
problematic position.
2. You've been discussing Strong AI and the Chinese Room Argument on various
lists since at least 2004, as search of GoogleGroups will confirm.
3. The primary source article for the Chinese Room Argument contains an
explicit characterization of Strong AI as evincing dualism, as the excerpt I
provided demonstrates.
4. By your own admission, you were "unaware" that Searle had said that.
> > > I am unaware that Searle ever called "strong AI"
> dualism so if you can provide the citation, I'd be
> interested to read it in context.
Now, try to look at this from the perspective of a third party. Can you not
see why your reading here might be seriously questioned, given your obvious and
ongoing interest in both the Searle arguments and the matter of dualism and
your failure to register how his remarks relate the two?
I am really at a loss to see how, given 1-3, you could have been "unaware", as
per 4. It is difficult for me not to either seriously question your ability to
read attentively or your question sincerity in challenging people to show you
the reference.
But perhaps there are more charitable ways of interpreting your behavior and I
am just failing to see them. Just as there are more charitable ways to
interpret my own reluctance to engage with you on this topic.
(I suspect that the idea that I refuse to do so simply because of some
inability is simply laughable to anyone who has engaged with me at length on
other topics.)
In any case, perhaps you can see why this sort of thing might make someone
reluctant to see any point in trying to pursue discussion with you of these
topics.
Your attempt to distinguish your "understanding of Searle's position" from your
"recollect(ion of) some particular statement(s)" or of "his precise verbiage"
and your attempt to distinguish the fact that you "didn't recollect something
he said in the course of making his argument" from whether you "have
misunderstood Searle's claims and his argument", are interesting moves. I find
them highly suspect, though I suppose we could unpack them and justify them.
I've wasted more than enough time with this though.
When it comes down to it, the central problem that seems to plague your various
readings is this: where Searle asks, "But could something think, understand,
and so on SOLELY IN VIRTUE of being a computer with the right sort of program?
Could instantiating a program, the right program of course, by itself be a
SUFFICIENT CONDITION of understanding?"(emphases mine), you regularly ignore
the "solely in virtue..." and "sufficient condition..." phrases.
You're also obviously unwilling or unable to see that you do this. So there's
really no point in continuing with the discussion.
JPDeMouy
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
