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

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 02:15:44 -0000

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

> --- On Sun, 3/14/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> >> The CRA illustrates two concepts:
> >>
> >> 1) Software/hardware systems cannot by virtue of
> >> running formal programs obtain understanding of the meanings
> > of the symbols they manipulate.
> > >
> > > and

> ...
> >
> > It does not illustrate the first. All it illustrates is
> > that such processes in isolation (as stand alone processes)
> > are not conscious and don't have understanding. But it says
> > nothing about combinations of such processes which are still
> > the same sorts of thing but capable of doing much more (more
> > extensive and complex information processing).
> The article I posted covers that objection -- the article from Scientific 
> American. Did you read it?
> -gts

Not yet. Too busy catching up. Just took a quick look. The quickest way to 
address this, though, would be if you do what you did elsewhere in re-producing 
Searle's own words or what I did previously by transcribing Dennett's (though 
I, too, have reproduced Searle's words and others in the past).

If you think he makes an important point pertaining to something I have said, 
then cut and paste it here (retaining the link, of course) and then we can both 
be sure I've seen it and, if it is salient to the points being made, we can 
handle it immediately in the discussion.



P.S. Is this going to be his response about internalizing the system in his 

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

Other related posts: