[Wittrs] Re: Focusing on the Refusal to Focus
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 May 2010 13:02:02 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
<snip>> SWM wrote:
> >
> >Apparently where we disagree is over whether Searle's CR provides a
> >basis for assuming the third premise of the CRA is true.
>
> yes. the issue is whether the third axiom is true.
>
No, I said: "whether Searle's CR provides a basis for assuming the thir premise
of the CRA is true".
THAT is a different question as I have already made clear. This is about
whether the CRA works, not whether Dennett's thesis doesn't or whether dualism
is true or whether some other argument can successfully make the case against
computationalism/functionalism/"Strong AI" that the CRA doesn't.
You either see this important distinction, and are deliberately attempting to
blur it, or you don't and really are misunderstanding. I'm not sure which is
worse for you.
> >>>>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 "CRT" is what I call the "CR" which is the scenario presented by
> >Searle from which he elaborates his argument, the "CRA". Are you saying
> >you have altered Searle's CR?
>
> not the CRT. that's still as good as gold;
That you think so is interesting . . . and telling.
> but, it culminates in the
> insight 'I do not understand chinese'. getting from that insight to the
> third axiom is the part that I've cleaned up --- by reducing the
> potential for conflation and equivocation (or, if you prefer ordinary
> english, the potential for three card monte scams).
>
You haven't 'cleaned it up', you've added lines and lines of obfuscation. Only
you could imagine that to convert a four or five step argument to 28 steps with
all sorts of intemediate relations makes things cleaner.
But note that above I was referring to your claim to have "reformulated" the
"CRT". I asked if you meant the CRA, Searle's four or five step argument
(depending on how you count). You replied
"no, I meant the CRT".
Since by "CRT" you presumably mean the Chinese Room Thought Experiment (as you
have previously said on these lists), which is the same as I mean by "CR" (I
see no reason to qualify it as a "thought experiment since that is understood),
you have told us you reformulated THAT. But now you say, in response to my
question of whether you meant you had "reformulated" the CR: "not the CRT.
that's still as good as gold".
It's apparent that you even argue about simple questions of clarification and
that, in doing so, you misstate what you, yourself, are doing since, in this
case, you WERE referring to your elaboration in 28 steps of Searle's four or
five step CRA!
<snip>
> >By "more of the same" let's be clear. What I have in mind is ... a
> >CR that is more like a brain, i.e., capable of running processes that
> >do the kinds of things brains do.
>
> what you can add to the CR as described in the CRT is more/faster
> syntactic operations; otherwise, you are adding something that is more
> than just syntax. that would be cheating.
>
> Joe
This is your mistake (or one of them). I am talking about adding functions
(different tasks that go beyond the tasks performed by Searle's CR), all
performed by the same kinds of constituents found in the CR, and putting them
together in a certain (interactive) way.
Of course that means one needs increased capacity in the form of more
processing power (as Dennett suggests, a parallel processor would probably be
required).
As I recently had occasion to again mention to Budd, who insists that this is
really Searle's own position, in fact, Searle himself seems to have missed that
remarkable claim! Indeed, he thinks his position is actually in conflict with
Dennett's (as Dennett thinks his in conflict with Searle's)!
If it's "cheating" as you say, then Searle would have no reason to deny
Dennett's thesis because it would not conflict with his own. And yet he does.
Why do you think that is?
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
