[Wittrs] Re: Searle in his own words!
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 00:56:09 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> SWM wrote:
> > Now Joe's original point was that the text he cited demonstrated that
> > Searle wasn't denying that computers could be conscious but only that
> > programs could. But when we look at that text in context and more closely
> > we see that he IS talking about computers running programs, i.e., his
> > argument aims to deny that computers could be conscious DOING WHAT
> > COMPUTERS DO. This isn't about some mysterious occurrence of consciousness
> > that's analogous to how computers qua machines generate heat and noise in
> > operation -- a thing no one in AI is claiming.
>
> > So this passage doesn't support a claim that my point that his denial of
> > computationally caused consiousness contradicts his affirmation of brain
> > caused consciousness.
>
> precisely,
>
> you claim that his denial of computationally caused consiousness
> contradicts his affirmation of brain caused consciousness; and, the
> quoted passage does not support such a claim.
>
> Joe
>
Of course, I left off some words in the above. The final statement should have
read:
"So this passage doesn't support a claim that my point, that his denial of
computationally caused consiousness contradicts his affirmation of brain caused
consciousness, is wrong."
I was typing fast this morning, as I was dealing with contractors today and so
was running in and out all day. However it's no excuse for mistakes (of which I
have been known to make my share). Nevertheless, my closing remark should have
been clearly seen to be missing something given what I said leading up to it
and the fact that the sentence obviously lacked a grammatical object. But I
guess by making the mistake in finishing that final statement, I lobbed Joe an
easy one and he was glad enough to swing at it.
My bad and Joe gets at least a walk out of it. Still, it's not sufficient to
bring his man home.
As to what the "quoted passage supports", it clearly shows a muddle on Searle's
part at the least. But, more, it provides no support for Joe's claim that
Searle's assertion that computers might be conscious (in the way they produce
ancillary effects like noise and heat!) has relevance to Searle's primary
thesis in the CRA, i.e., his denial of "Strong AI" which he makes clear (or as
clear as he manages to make any of this) is about denying that computational
processes (programs) running on computers can be conscious. The nonsense about
ancillary consciousness is entirely irrelevant to Searle's denial of "Strong
AI" as he says quite explicitly in the rest of the text that follows the brief
passage Joe quoted.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts: