[Wittrs] Re: Dancing Dualisms: Searlean Moves and Cartesian Moves--P's @ K's

  • From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 30 Mar 2010 19:30:15 -0000

--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
> > Anyway, why doesn't my post (to which you just replied) appear below where 
> > it should?
> That seems to be an annoying misfeature of yahoo groups.  It is hard to find 
> older posts in a thread.
> This link seems to be the post you are referring to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/4930
> It was hard to find that.  I had to look through all posts for the month to 
> find it.

Much thanks for finding it.  I would like to know if you can find any 
misstatements in it, whether technical or other.  Not that I didn't appreciate 
your responses so far.

Also, I'm going to post it again and see if anyone else wants to take a stab at 
it.  I was interested whether Stuart will help me see where I just got this or 
that wrong.  Or Gordon, who likes to defend Searle while insisting earlier at 
another forum that Searle's CR gets a UTM wrong because of the very thought 
experiment being a construction of that which simply is not a Turing machine.  
And that reminds me of your objection about the impossibility of a human being 
quick enough to make Searle's CR seem plausible in the first place (I believe 
that was one of Dennett's suggestions that was simply dismissed by Searle as 
not getting the point).  But you can guess where I'll probably go from there.  
I'll talk about functional properties again.  I want to know what might be 
wrong with my understanding of functional properties vis a vis 
computation--whether you guys really don't mind conflating them with 
first-order physical properties or not.

Thanks in advance for your and anyone else's comments.


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: