[Wittrs] An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 09 May 2010 18:12:47 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>scenario 2 considers the claim of constitution.
>>in this scenario, I hypothesize that the relation between syntax and
>>semantic is one of constitution (where 'to constitute' means 'to count
>>as').
>"Count as" is to include something in a particular class. "Constitutes"
>doesn't mean that exclusively. Why should we take Searle to have meant
>"count as" rather than some other use when he said "does not
>constitute"?
you may repeat scenario 2 using other definitions of 'to constitute',
such as those you found in various online dictionaries; and, I encourage
you to report any definition of 'to constitute' that seems to you to
lead to a different result.
>>hypothesizing that syntax counts as semantics leads to the
>>expectation that there will be semantic understanding in the CR; but,
>>this is not the case. hence the hypothesized relation between syntax
>>and semantics is rejected; and, I conclude that (given that sense of
>>'constitute') syntax does not constitute semantic understanding.
>If we do take that use as the right one, the outcome still wouldn't
>change because saying 'a car doesn't count as the class of motor
>vehicles' is no different than saying the car is not the same as its
>class (a claim of non-identity). Thus, "syntax doesn't constitute
>semantics" read as "syntax doesn't count as semantics" is, finally,
>tantamount to saying "syntax is not the same as semantics".
>Your version of translating "doesn't constitute" into "doesn't count
>as" is still a non-identity claim. Of course, the CR does show the
>non-identity of syntax and semantics as I've already said. The problem
>is that we still have to get to a non-causal claim as in brains cause
>minds but computers can't! And the CR does not demonstrate that what we
>call minds are not just an outcome of a certain arrangement of
>syntactical constituents which is a legitimate way in which we could
>say that causation occurs.
>The problem is that the claim of constitution as "counts as" that you
>have offered unpacks to a variant of a claim of identity. While
>"constitutes" has a range of uses in English, the only one that's
>relevant here looks like it has to do with identity. Noting that a
>thing is not the same as the class in which it is placed, that while it
>counts as a member of that class it is not the same as that class, is
>still a claim of non-identity. And such a claim still does not imply
>non-causality.
you appear to be saying that I am mistaken to claim that the hypothesis
of scenario 2, 'syntax constitutes semantics', is falsified by the
absence of understanding despite the presence of syntax in the CR
*because* every claim of constitution is a claim of identity and the
hypothesis, 'syntax is identical to semantics', is falsified by the
absence of understanding despite the presence of syntax in the CR.
if I have misunderstand, would you clarify what you are saying in these
paragraphs?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
