[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shiftiness--Reply to Stuart

  • From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 22:41:57 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:

> So when Searle is arguing against strong AI, he is not denying that
> computers need electricity to sustain programs. He is commenting
> on the thesis that understanding which programs might pass a TT
> is no good for philosophy of mind because he shows a case where a
> functional system passes a TT without there being any semantics.

Two points:

(1) Searle does not show a case where a functional system  passes a TT;

(2) Searle does not show that there are no semantics.

By the way, I do wish that both sides would stop accusing the other
side of dualism.


Other related posts: