[Wittrs] Re: An Issue Worth [Really] Focusing On
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 22:49:36 -0000
Lastly, I'll comment on just a bit and let it rest.
Stuart writes:
"You presume something about syntax (that it's not being semantics excludes it
from bringing semantics about) because of a certain way of thinking about
semantics that you share with Searle and other dualists."
So you say. But you are sadly mistaken. It's that computers don't even have
syntax in the relevant sense. Also, it is that for Searle he's just coining
the word "syntactical" to apply to the formality of running computer programs,
and that includes his APA address which is dismissed by you so off-hand you
can't be bothered with a close reading of Searle.. Was it you or Parr who
claimed to find a contradiction in Searle such that reading a word more of him
would be a waste of time? It was you, and that was another dodge. The certain
way of thinking I share with Searle is not dualist, nor can you intelligibly
prove this. All you can do is conflate what YOU think is syntax with physics.
But when you do, you are sharing Searle's position AND disagreeing with him.
You only get to argue that he is wrong about computers--not that he's a dualist
for so arguing. Indeed, he argues against strong AI because it itself has
dualism built into it. Unless you conflate syntax with physics, that is,
which, in upshot, amounts to Searle's position, again, again.
Stuart gets around more:
"There's no getting around this. Unless and until you see this, you will remain
in the same place re: this argument, i.e., completely unable to fathom the
important distinction between a system level property and a property associated
with some constituent(s) of the system."
You are seriously confused or just pissing against the wind because you're into
that sort of thing.. The point is that for Searle syntax doesn't add anything
at the system level. Further, consciousness and semantics just are system
level properties. If you want to say that Searle is wrong to think that syntax
can't be a system level property, that is one thing. You can't argue from
there that he doesn't view consciousness and semantics as system level
properties of nonS/H systems. It is simply you types who don't distinguish
between S/H and nonS/H. And to the extent that you don't, you end up with
Searle's actual position anyway by conflating syntax with physics. You end up
with a Fregean sense of Searle but spelled out in a mode of presentation such
that it sounds at odds with Searle. I'm that quick on the uptake.
Lastly, Stuart avers without good argument AT ALL:
> Searle is badly mistaken. The system repliers have it exactly right and your
> boy Searle just misses the boat entirely.
>
> SWM
You're a funny guy. Gordon too. And Neil for suggesting that Searle ought to
have been arguing against weak AI as Searle understands it.. You [Stuart at
least] accept his position with or without knowing it. Your argument about the
third premise is just aweful and made up to distract attention. Or your
attention to English is just not that good.
The system repliers are contradicting themselves, on one hand, and conceding
Searle's point on the other.
How do I know this? They conflate syntax with physics now compared to before
when stating that it might be in virtue of the program that a system might
understand a story. It turns out that the system repliers want to have it both
ways but can't or cant. I'll let them have it Searle's way. It's funny that
you don't see that the upshot of the systems reply is the very thesis of
Searle--or it is a waffling between Searle's position and a position he showed
to be incoherent.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
