[Wittrs] Re: Searle's CRA shows nothing

  • From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 17:11:30 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
> As I read through this thread, I get the impression that some
> people do not understand the systems reply.  Incidently, it was my
> impression from what Searle writes, that he does not understand the
> systems reply either - he seems to see it as an attempt at a sneaky
> end run around his argument.

Well, he denies its validity - for computers.

It contradicts a lot of his anthropocentric preferences, or at least he thinks 
it does.  I'm not so certain.  After all, Searle *does* assert a physicalist 
basis, which is a sort of a "systems" basis, he just somehow knows and asserts 
that digital electronic computers are not the *right* physical basis.


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

Other related posts: