[Wittrs] An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 20:17:42 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Read my argument again for why Searle is a dualist.
>>now that the logical validity of the CRA has been demonstrated, we
>>can move on to the evaluation of Searle's argument that the third
>>axiom is true and the evaluation of your critique of it; and, in
>>this context, your opinions as to whether Searle is a dualist are
>>completely irrelevant; because, they constitute an ad hominem
>>argument.
>my point about the dualism implicit in Searle's CRA is the key to my
>case so it cannot be dispensed with.
if your case depends on the claim that Searle is a Cartesian dualist;
then, we know what your argument is worth.
>The very notion that syntax can't cause semantics because syntax isn't
>semantics hinges on a dualist idea of mind.
the third axiom does not presuppose that the reason that syntax can't
cause semantics because syntax isn't semantics.
>If you want to proceed, then focus on the issues and stop blowing
>smoke.
you should take your own advice. stop blathering about dualism; and,
focus on the issue: how does the CRT show that the third axiom is true.
it seems that we both agree that there is no understanding (as Searle
defines 'understanding') in the chinese room (as described or 'specked'
by Searle); and, that there are syntactic operations happening in the
chinese room.
given that, certain conclusions follow:
[1] the hypothesis that syntactic operations are identical to
understanding is refuted by the absence of understanding in the CR
despite the presence of syntactic operations in the CR.
[2] the hypothesis that syntactic operations constitute understanding is
refuted by the absence of understanding in the CR despite the presence
of syntactic operations in the CR.
[3] the hypothesis that syntactic operations cause understanding is
refuted by the absence of understanding in the CR despite the presence
of syntactic operations in the CR.
so far, you've not challenged any of these claims; nor, the observation
that each claim is independent of the others.
you have, however, championed Dennett's suggestion that the specks of
the CR might be increased; but, since Dennett changes the definition of
'undertanding', it is seems reasonable to infer that Dennett is not
claiming that the more robust specifications will generate understanding
as Searle defines understanding.
if you want to focus on an issue, this is a good one. explain why anyone
would consider the third axiom false or unproven just because Dennett
claims that a more robustly specked CR would be able to achieve
something ... other than understanding as Searle defines understanding.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
