[Wittrs] Re: Searle's CRA and its Implications

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 10:31:34 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Sun, 3/14/10, Joseph Polanik <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> His consciousness has *enormous* relevance, Stuart!
>> The thought experiment shows that the human mind
>> attaches meanings to symbols by some means other than
>> running formal programs. It shows us that the
>> computationalist theory of mind fails to explain the facts.
> The man in the room is there to say "I understand english;
> but, I do not understand chinese; although, I can manipulate the syntax
> of each language".

Exactly, Joe. Any challenge to Searle's axiom that syntax does not give 
semantics, including Stuart's, needs to explain how it happens that the man 
inside the room can understand the stories in English but not in Chinese.



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

Other related posts: