[Wittrs] Correction - Re: Causation, Identity, Constitutiveness and Sufficiency
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 18:29:47 -0000
Below I should have written (corrections in capitals):
"Budd thinks Searle finally just means that computers, being mere hardware, are
simply irrelevant to the PROGRAMS THEY ARE RUNNING (on the grounds of multiple
realizability).
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
<snip>
> > And per A1, programs are formal.
> >
>
I shouldn't have written "No" below either. I only did because I took your "A1"
to be a reference to "AI" with a typo when, on reflection, I see you meant what
you call "axiom 1" and I call "premise #1"! Nevertheless the main thrust of my
response stands.
> No, per Searle they are formal though we aren't disputing that for the
> purposes of this argument -- though there is some dispute as to what it means
> to be "formal", after all, Searle does slide into the strange position that
> programs, being formal, lack the capacity to make anything happen in the real
> world but, if so, that's to take no account of the role of the physical
> platforms on which the computers run, namely computers.
>
Immediately below is the text where I made the error referenced at the top. I
wish there were ways to correct errors on this list, in order to avoid later
recriminations and unncessary debate over statements made in error (since we
all make errors) but there isn't so I must content myself with this ex post
facto type of emendation!
> Budd thinks Searle finally just means that computers, being mere hardware,
> are simply irrelevant to the computers they run on (on the grounds of
> multiple realizability). But THAT is to confuse the idea of multiple
> realizability, as in any platform with adequate capacity to run the more
> robustly specked system will do, with the notion that certain
> non-computational (and entirely unspecified) machine features must be added
> to the mix in which case it's no longer what Searle calls "Strong AI" which
> he is opposing.
>
<snip>
For the rest, I'm not even gonna look anymore and will wait to see if anyone
picks up on other errors I may yet have missed. Some like to grab and run with
them, of course, to score easy points but such efforts are really just a
distraction.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
