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

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:28:34 -0700 (PDT)

Dennett's Page 439:

"The argument that begins 'this little bit of brain activity doesn't understand 
Chinese, and neither does this bigger bit of which it is a part...' is headed 
for the unwanted conclusion that even the activity of the whole brain is 
insufficient to account for understanding Chinese..."

No it isn't. 

Here Dennett reveals his own suppressed premise: *only if the organic brain 
equals as a software/hardware system* would Searle's argument lead to "the 
unwanted conclusion that even the activity of the whole brain is insufficient 
to account for understanding Chinese".

Searle denies adamantly that the brain equals a S/H system, so his argument 
does not lead where Dennett would have us believe.

Dennett continues: "It is hard to imagine how 'just more of the same' could add 
up to understanding, but we have very good reason to believe that it does, so 
in this case we should try harder, not give up."

No, we have no reason whatsoever to believe that it does. Again he assumes the 
organic brain works like a S/H system.

-gts





      
==========================================

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

Other related posts: