[Wittrs] Re: Searle's Revised Argument -- We're not in Syntax anymore!
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 00:59:43 -0000
Nope.
SWM
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> I read your responses to the summary eight points and found them a disaster.
>
> Stuart writes:
>
> "His assertion that the biological nature
> of the brain is paramount is being assumed here, not demonstrated, as is his
> assumption as to what "intentionality" is.
> This again points up his inherently mysterian concept of mind, a concept that
> while explicitly denying dualism finally hinges on it because of a commitment
> to a fundamental irreducibility of
> mind to its constituents, even while he persists in agreeing that brains do
> what he wants to say computers can never do."
>
>
> How would a demonstration of the biological nature of the brain go for you?
>
> How does your notion of intentionality, perhaps, differ from Searle's?
>
> Your assertion that Searle is a mysterian is unsupported. Just because there
> is an explanatory gap, and NCCs will be found inductively, with eventually
> greater inductive strength as we get clearer as to the mechanisms of the
> brain which cause consciousness, doesn't by itself amount to mysterianism.
> If it does, then everyone has to be a mysterian except eliminativists, who
> are incoherent or so pragmatic they don't mind waffling in the way Searle
> found them to. The system repliers either mean what Searle does by nonS/H
> system properties or they don't. And if not, then their strong AI is subject
> to the CRA because no amount of formal programming adds brute causality QUA
> program.
>
> That his conception hinges on dualism is mere assertion, on one hand, and
> when you attempted to argue for it, you had to mischaracterize Searle in
> order to do so.
>
> Remember that Searle's position is consistent with causal reduction.
> Remember the piston/butter story. I'll never forget how hastily you once
> said I got the story backward. But you've been quite the Sid Caesar over the
> years.
>
> Also remember that you always waffle between describing the action of
> potentially complex, layered computer programs as if they are brute physical
> properties of the machine which are not defined in terms of the formal
> properties of actual programs, on one hand, while wanting to call such
> potentially complex devices computers.
>
> In the sense in which you mean things, your position is not inconsistent with
> Searle's.
>
> You will deny it. But you strain credibility.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Budd
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
