[Wittrs] Syntax and Semantics in the Chinese Room Switcheroo
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 15:06:18 -0400
iro3isdx wrote:
>gabuddabout wrote:
>>But Searle shows a possible case where there is the relevant
>>behavior without the semantics given that programs are spelled out
>>entirely in second-order property terms and as such involve a notion
>>of "electrical arrangement" where the electricity is funnelled through
>>logic gates such that a program is a purely formal affair/arrangement.
>Here is what you are missing. Nobody in AI, nobody in computer
>science, no mathematician - none of them ever assumed that the
>semantics would be in the CPU. It was always assumed that it would be
>in the system as a whole, rather than in the CPU.
I'm assuming that you meant all those folks assumed that there would be
understanding in the system as a whole --- *if it was anywhere at all*.
>>The systems reply changes the subject ...
>Actually, no, the Systems Reply does not change the subject at all.
I disagree.
during the course of the discussion, the systems reply changes the
subject by changing the meaning of 'understanding'.
the understanding that Searle refuses to attribute whether to the man or
to the room as a whole is different from the understanding that Dennett
and others are willing to attribute to the system as a whole.
to Searle, understanding is a qualitative aspect of experience, a quale.
to Dennett, understanding is just complex functionality without qualia.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
