[Wittrs] Focusing on the Refusal to Focus
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 06:40:41 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>The CRA (the "Chinese Room ARGUMENT") fails because its actual premises
>do not sustain the claimed truth of its conclusions. It is also invalid
>when stated as Searle states it. When restated as you do, it is no
>longer seen to be invalid
yes, I have validated the CRA.
let's move on to the question of whether the third premise is true.
>And we have seen that its truth isn't established by any claim of
>conceptual truth nor by any analysis of the CR scenario.
we disagree as to whether the truth of the third premise is, has been or
can be established. that's why the issue is *whether* the third premise
is true.
focusing on that issue may help you understand why an analysis of the
CRT is relevant.
>>the reformulated CRT still concerns understanding as Searle defines it
>>and the CR as Searle specked it.
>I presume you mean the "CRA" rather than the "CRT", since this is about
>an argument, not the "thought experiment"?
no, I meant the CRT since the third axiom is constructed from simpler
claims that the CRT shows to be true.
>The specking issue that I raised had to do with what Searle
>incorporates in his CR (Chinese Room). Your reference to "specking"
>appears to be a reference to his definition of "understanding".
when I want to talk about the definition of 'understanding' I'll mention
"the definition of 'understanding'".
when I use 'specking', I'm using it to deal with issues concerning what
Searle incorporates into the CR. you seem to think that the CR is
'underspecked' because 'more of the same' hasn't yet been incorporated
into the CR.
what do you want to add to the CR of Searle's CRT to make the man
understand Chinese?
do you want to add more people? do you think that adding an audience
that watches the man work will make the man in the CR understand
chinese?
what else is there? what do you want to add more of that will make the
man in the CR understand chinese?
>Note that I have disagreed with your recently presented claim that
>Dennett redefines "understanding" in a way that removes it from the
>realm of what Searle means. This is simply false since both are talking
>about the same thing: the phenomenon of understanding as found in
>entities like ourselves with whatever that entails (including the
>subjectivity that goes with realizing what we are doing when we are
>doing it, etc.).
[Joe: 2010-03-14: #4614 (in a reply to Neil)]: the systems reply changes
the subject by changing the meaning of 'understanding'. the
understanding that Searle refuses to attribute whether to the man or to
the room as a whole is different from the understanding that Dennett and
others are willing to attribute to the system as a whole. to Searle,
understanding is a qualitative aspect of experience, a quale. to
Dennett, understanding is just complex functionality without qualia.
[SWM: 2010-03-14: #4635]: Yes, Joe is right about the meaning. It does
change the meaning of "understanding" because understanding is
inadequately conceived initially and this whole debate is about what it
really takes to constitute it, to have it.
have you changed your position since then?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
