[Wittrs] Re: Searle in his own words!
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 20:40:10 -0000
I read your responses, Stuart. The first response treated what little I said
so far as if it were the whole argument. The rest was just funky ducking of
the major distinction which you don't make but Searle does.
So in essence you get Searle wrong in order to argue with him. Further, it
seems that you don't even grasp Dennett's motivation for Strong AI.
And the references I was making to other work was in the spirit of generating
other sources to look at outside the scope of my journalistic forays into what
Searle and Dennett actually say.
When you reply that these sources don't add to my argument, I have to wonder
why you would think I meant them to.
In short, I nailed why the noncausality claim is found in the first premise.
(There is only one first premise if your having trouble understanding which
premise I'm talking about. Which is further evidence that you like to have it
both ways, namely, totally inept handling of what is said concomitant with
hints that you being that way on purpose.
I'll end with an example, proof if you like, that I didn't just declare the
options of you being either benighted or lyingly appearing more stupid than you
are:
You had a problem understanding what I was referring to by the target article!
Well, do you really?
Here's how this ends. It ends with a distinction between S/H and nonS/H
systems.
If you conflate them, it doesn't matter if you shout from the rooftop that your
position is Dennett's. You're arguing Searle's position without knowing it (or
lying) and also getting Dennett wrong.
For example, Dennett considers Searle's position crazy. He can only think that
via Hacker/Wittgenstein criteriology.
I, along with Fodor, think definitions a waste of breath.
And to argue definitions with someone who can't/won't remember the details of
what is being asserted by me is just frustrating. I continued to post just to
see how hilarious it could get.
It ends with no appreciation of just how well I understand why Searle claims
programs are formal (first premise).
Recall all your efforts on the third premise. Well, denial of Searle's first
premise is just conflating physical and functional properties.
Now you do so because you don't understand the difference or because you can
make a case that the distinction is without a difference.
Since many simply say that you can have an "intentional stance" toward things,
this apparently gets fleshed as having such a stance toward human beings as if
they can be interpreted as massively parallel computers.
Well, it's true but so can thermostats and rocks and it is supposed to be a
reductio that if one's philosophy of mind can't make principled distinctions
between systems that have minds from systems that don't, then they don't have
one that even gets started.
Anyway, let's just say that the distinction you make is one between ways of
seeing consciousness. Your way allows for degrees of consciousness in a way
that Searle handled quite nicely in the target article. You should know by
now, but the one that contained the CRT.
If you want to talk loose, then I'll take Neil's advice and just not take you
seriously.
Searle's problem maybe was that he took the position you're trying to sell
seriously.
But when you argue about brains causing consciousness, as I've seen you do,
that is just great because it is Searle's position. But no one in AI is
claiming that brains cause consciousness as part of their AI research. The
claim has nothing to do with their research. Indeed, Dennett would rather
explain consciousness away than harbor the thesis that the brain causes
consciousness. Otherwise he would think Searle's position is as nutty as he
likes to swiftboat-style declare without good argument.
Your actual arguments against Searle have been shown by me to consistently
refrain from making a distinction that Searle makes. That is inventing a
strawman to argue with.
OTOH, I at least consistently show what motivates Dennett and what motivates
Searle. Call them all declarations if you like. It's cool that we've not even
been arguing at all. Do you hear the semantic content in my loudness?
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
