[Wittrs] Bogus Claim 4: Searle is Refuted by Redefining 'Understanding'
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 07:22:31 -0400
Bogus Claim 4: Searle is Refuted by Redefining 'Understanding'
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>you alleged that the CRA needed a 4th axiom to deduce the conclusion
>>from the three explicit axioms;
>I said there is a fourth, suppressed, premise that is buried in the
>CRA, i.e., the claim about what the "understanding" in question must
>be, whether it is reducible to constituents that don't, themselves,
>understand, or whether it is irreducible and thus a simple
>(non-reducible) property of one or more of those constituents.
>Aside from my point that no such property can really exist because
>everything, at some level, is a system, my main claim is that the
>"understanding" in question COULD be accounted for as a system rather
>than a process level property and, if so, then the only reason the CR
>doesn't show any understanding is because it hasn't been specked at a
>level sufficient to produce understanding.
>I've also showed that the notion that the interpretation of the
>statement that is needed to be true is only thought to be true based on
>a particular idea of the "understanding" in question but that that is
>not the only possible understanding of "understanding" and that nothing
>in the CR shows that it is. If it is not, then it is not established as
>true in which case the interpretation that's needed to be true is not
>seen to be based on the CR.
Searle claims that neither the CR nor the man in the CR understands
chinese as he defines 'understanding' --- as the experience of
understanding --- and the CRA shows that syntax does not constitute and
is not sufficient for generating the experiential aspect (the 'mental
content' necessary for semantics) of understanding.
so, in some sense the CRA presupposes the use of certain definitions for
the words used in stating the CRA; but, every argument does that.
Dennett has every right to redefine 'understanding' so that it doesn't
require any experiential component or any mental content whatsoever;
but, doing so doesn't refute the CRA. doing so just *ignores* the CRA;
and, makes Dennett's 'response' irrelevant to it.
in essence, Searle is saying that syntax does not generate experience in
the CR; and, in essence, Dennett is saying that a higher tech CR might
generate something besides experience.
these are logically independent claims.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
