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

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 02:02:34 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:

> --- On Mon, 3/29/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> > No one denies he succeeds in following his English
> > instructions nor do they have to be in English nor does he
> > have to be following them in English. He could be an Urdu
> > man following Urdu instructions, after all!

> You say you have read the target paper but I really wonder about that.
> In Searle's actual CRA (the one that you persist in ignoring) the man 
> implements TWO programs: one in Chinese in which he follows syntactic rules 
> in English and one in English in which he also follows syntactic rules in 
> English. He cannot understand the Chinese symbols while operating the Chinese 
> program but he does understand the English symbols while operating the 
> English program.

> In both parts of the experiment he does the same sorts of operations -- what 
> you call rote processes -- but he understands the symbols in English.
> Your theory does not explain the difference.
> -gts

It certainly does. The point is what does understanding consist of? Can it be 
accounted for by a description of a system in operation. I am arguing that 1) 
it can be so conceived because 2) it can be fully accounted for in this way. -- 

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

Other related posts: