[Wittrs] On Adequate Replies--The Comedy of the Systems Reply
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 22:47:29 -0000
Neil writes:
> Searle never adequately responds to the Systems Reply. Nor does
> Gordon.
>
Joseph P. writes:
> > syntax doesn't generate semantics because it is an act with mental
> > content (semantic) that creates the possibility of syntax.
> While that might possibly be true, all we have from Searle, from Gordon
> and from you are bare assertions with no actual evidence.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
'
But what sort of evidence is available which would show computation to be a
physical process fleshed in brute first-order causal terms? Possibly none.
So,....
If the systems reply is fleshed in physicalist terms, then Searle would not
want to argue against it.
What happened is that strong AIers (weak AIers for you since you don't like to
distinguish) got caught contradicting themselves.
Here's how.
Theses: In virtue of the right program, such and such may pass a Turing test
and also is the (or 'a') right explanation for some modality such as sentience,
thought, understanding, perception, and the like.
But counter: The man understands English but not Chinese while the Turing test
is powerless to show this and allows for false positives.
Systems reply: But the system as a whole (not just the humunculus sucking on a
CPU) understands.
Counter: But the thought experiment allows the humunculus to internalize the
whole system and still not understand.
Final begging of the question by the system replier: Yes, but silly, we are
conflating the computational processes with physical ones.
Searle: I knew that and thought I'd find you contradicting yourself. You
either have a system defined by second-order properties (a computational one)
or not. If you like the latter you might like the real estate of the brain
like myself, though we all don't know what to do with it exactly as far as a
theory of mind goes.
But ignorance here can't amount to an argument against biological naturalism.
And ignorance here surely doesn't make for a prettier smile on the face of
computationalists.
Cf. Steve Martin: Comedy is not pretty!
What's the difference between serious philosophy and comedy? Lip schtick.
Sign on the door of a philosophy professor: Caution! Some objects around here
are smarter than they appear.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
