[Wittrs] Re: Searle's Revised Argument -- We're not in Syntax anymore!
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 24 May 2010 08:35:55 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Sun, 5/23/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> His APA argument shows it as incoherent, not even
>> rising to the level of falsehood.
>
>
> In which case, the CRA has collapsed, i.e., it made a
> mistaken claim. If something doesn't "even rise to the level
> of falsehood" then it is wrong to claim it is false, isn't
> it?
No. In his APA address, Searle argues that because computation does not name an
observer-independent physical process, it makes no sense to describe the
organic brain as a computer. Doing so leads to the homunculus fallacy. If the
brain exists as a computer then who observes it? Who/what acts as the end-user?
And if we cannot rightly describe the brain as a computer then the strong AI
thesis is false.
If you don't grok that argument then you must still contend with his CRA.
Choose your poison!
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
