[Wittrs] Re: Further Thoughts on Dennett, Searle and the Conundrum of Dualism

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:53:06 -0000

For some reason I just did two replies to this and both failed to come through. 
I am going offline for a couple of days so maybe they will. No sense my trying 
again (and I haven't the time anyway). But, for the record, Gordon is mistaken 
below when he denies the description of the CR's activities as "rote 
responses". What else are we to take them to be, real understanding? That, of 
course, is the precise opposite of what the CRA maintains about them.

Gordon seems to want to say that the man in the room is not a "rote responder" 
but that is because Gordon counts the man in the room as integral to the 
concept of the CRA as a universal Turing machine. This is utterly mistaken. As 
a UTM the activity of the CR is stipulated to be a matter of mindless (read 
"rote") responding.

Yes, the man's presence has a role in the argument, but the CR is intended to 
be a proxy for a CPU-driven machine. Therefore the man's role is like the actor 
who plays a doctor on TV. In this case he is playing a CPU.

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> The idea of "rote responses" comes from your imagination.

> <snip>

I've snipped the rest because I already responded to it, twice, and trust it 
will show up here eventually.


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

Other related posts: