[Wittrs] An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 06:36:07 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>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:
>>so far, you've not challenged any of these claims; nor, the
>>observation that each claim is independent of the others.
>I have repeatedly made the same points ... Apparently you just don't
>get them.
let's see if you've made relevant points, shall we?
>>[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.
>This shows that syntax is not the same as semantics.
do you admit or deny that the hypothesis is refuted?
>>[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.
>This hinges on the use of "constitutes" which can be taken in a causal
>sense or in an identity sense.
focus, Stuart. we're not writing a dissertation on the conflationary
possibilities of ordinary english; so, let's just informally define
'constitutes' as 'counts as'. 'A constitutes B' means 'A counts as B'.
for example, 'usually, water is constituted by H20 plus impurities; but,
pure H20 also constitutes water' means that pure H20 counts as or is an
instance of water.
using this definition of 'constitutes', do you admit or deny that the
hypothesis is refuted?
you could also evaluate the hypothesis using some other definition of
'constitutes' that did not conflate constitution with identity
(considered in [1]) or causation (considered in [2]).
>>[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.
>This shows that you misunderstand the point about causality. If the
>causality results from something at the system level, then the absence
>of understanding in the CR (one particular kind of system), says
>nothing about the capabilities of some other kind of system (one that
>is more complex, more robustly specked) to accomplish what the more
>limited CR system cannot accomplish.
the hypothesis stated in [3] concerns understanding as Searle defines
understanding; the CR as specked by Searle; and, causation as scientists
would use it to describe an event (a spark caused the explosion).
speculating about alternate definitions and alternate conditions in the
CR constitutes evasiveness as to the question at hand: would a
non-dualist (such as yourself) claim that there already is understanding
(as Searle defines understanding) in the CR (as specked by Searle).
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
