Is Popper's argument that no machine EVER could think, or that the machines of his day couldn't ? It seems to me that the washing machine isn't exactly the most cogent example any more. O.K. ________________________________ From: Donal McEvoy <donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx> To: "lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx" <lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Tuesday, September 3, 2013 3:44 PM Subject: [lit-ideas] Re: view of names, or in ginocchio da te ________________________________ From: Adriano Palma <Palma@xxxxxxxxxx> >2. it has one version, the bbs version available here http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=6573580> According to the abstract Adriano provides: "On the argument advanced here only a machine could think". If this accurately reflects Searle's view (or if Searle thinks machines can have 'intentionality') then his argument and position are very different from Popper's - on Popper's argument 'intentionality' transcends any physical or mechanical principle, and machines cannot think. Machines cannot even 'name', on Popper's view: they might appear to name (to those lacking a clear philosophical head) but they are not naming as this is done by humans (and how humans do it is the way 'naming' is done with intentionality). On Popper's argument (which predates Searle afaik) a machine that makes jam jars is not thinking anymore than a machine that washes jam jars - and a machine that attaches labels to jam jars that say 'Strawberry Jam Jar' is not 'naming' the jam jars as a human is when they refer (with intentionality) to it as a 'Strawberry Jam Jar'. The machine that makes the jam jar and the one that attaches the labels are all on the same level - the same W1 level - as far as Popper is concerned: the one attaching the labels is no more linguistically advanced than the one that makes the jars or washes them, and it is deluded to think otherwise.The 'naming' robot in my posts is simply the robot equivalent of a machine that attaches labels - it is no more linguistically advanced than the machine that makes or washes jam jars either, and it is deluded to think otherwise. But this kind of delusion is widespread: here is a point where I feel Popper and Wittgenstein would agree (there are others btw). There is something about computers and other machines that can throw some humans into a deluded state, just as the ancients might have been thrown into a deluded state (say, as to the wrath of a deity) by the physical impressiveness of a thunderstorm or volcanic eruption. There is nothing in this reference to indicate that Searle explains or argues how the physics of words, the physics of objects and the physics of their relations, cannot give rise to a purely physical explanation of how a word functions to name (or refer to) a specific object - which is the crux of Popper's paper. So how Searle's argument is equivalent beats me - and of course, despite being asked, this alleged equivalence is left unexplained by Adriano. (Adriano's reference does not explain it either.) Why Adriano thinks it worthwhile to provide such a bare reference without getting to grips with the arguments, and without justifying his view that there is 'equivalence' between Searle and Popper, is beyond me. Perhaps when he was given essays to write based on a reading list he got top marks for providing his own reading list by way of an answer - leaving it to the reader to figure out the brilliance of his answer from the material to which he referred. If only rational argument were so easy. Of course, providing reading lists and airily dismissive comments is not only much easier but a much greater sop to the inflated ego and delusional intellect than rational argument. Here Adriano comes unstuck or hoist by own petard: as the upshot of Searle's position (as set out in the reference Adriano provides) - that "only a machine could think" - is not merely not equivalent but antithetical to Popper's position as set out in his paper and my posts - that machines can't think - indeed they can't even 'name'. Adriano's talk of "fake problems" is merely blather from someone who cannot even the grasp the plainest of fake equivalences. Basta Donal