[Wittrs] Re: The CRA: Is the Third Premise True?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 15:51:14 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 4/8/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> > And who defines what counts as a "serious" reply, by the
> > way? Is Dennett's not a serious reply then?
>
> As Searle pointed out, Dennett misconstrues the CRT (CR thought
> experiment) as about consciousness instead of syntax/semantics.
That is surely one of Searle's more ridiculous responses, as Hauser noted in
that text of Searle's asserting this which you routed us to (but which you
declined to pay any serious attention to on the grounds that it reflected a
view with which you disagreed).
Note that Searle repeatedly uses the CRA as an argument about consciousness
(Minds, Brains and Science; Language, Mind and Society, The Mystery of
Consciousness) and, moreover, if this isn't about consciousness then it isn't
about anything worth discussing because so-called "strong AI" is about
replicating consciousness on a synthetic, computational platform, not about
replicating something called "semantics".
Note, as well, that Searle seems to believe that Dennett's thesis about what
consciousness is is mistaken because Dennett allegedly makes the mistake of
thinking computer programs (Searle's "syntax") can produce consciousness (which
include Searle's "semantics"). So it's about "semantics" but not consciousness?
As Hauser rightly notes, give us a break!
> No doubt Searle formalized his argument partly in response to Dennett's
> strawman characterization of it.
>
Searle continuously reformulated his argument over the years to meet the slew
of objections raised against it. But let me ask you this: Why would Searle have
needed to "reformulate" his CRA in response to Dennett's claims about
consciousness or anyone's (and Dennett explicitly addresses the question of
consciousness, after all, even if Searle now wants to pretend he doesn't), if
Dennett's arguments were "strawman" as you suppose?
If they were, they could be readily shown to be that and the CRA could have
stood as originally presented.
Instead Searle made changes to the formulation of the claim, changes that would
only have been necessary if the original formulation was unclear, inadequate or
both.
> > Are the Churchlands not serious?
>
> The Churchlands miss the point for the reasons stated in the same Scientific
> American article in which Searle formalized his argument.
>
But are they not "serious" as you allege? We already know that Searle claims
they miss the point.
Others, myself included, think Searle misses the point, by the way, by failing
to recognize the distinction between understanding "understanding" as a system
level property rather than as a process level one.
So is this to be about competing charges over who misses what point?
And is such a charge enough, in itself, to sustain a claim that someone has
gotten something wrong? (If it is enough to justify a claim that the
Churchlands are wrong, why isn't it enough to say Searle is?)
Finally, does someone claiming someone else has "missed the point" count as
support for a claim that they aren't "serious" critics?
Can you give us criteria for what counts as being a "serious" critic or a
"serious" argument and can you identify some candidates for these two
categories? Who, on your view, is a "serious" critic of Searle's CRA and what
counts as a "serious" criticism of it?
> I've aimed my efforts here at helping YOU understand the formal argument that
> neither Dennett nor the Churchlands have actually addressed.
>
Dennett certainly does address it in the text I provided though not with the
logical rigor that I've attempted. (Whether he has done so elsewhere, I don't
know.)
I am not as familiar enough with the Churchlands' arguments to say whether they
have dealt with the logic of the CRA, but their main point about the system
being the locus of the understanding is right (and does address the issue I
have raised!) precisely because it is consistent with the idea that
consciousness (understanding, or whatever you want to make this about at this
point in the debate) can be understood as a system level property. If it can,
the CR and its CRA have nothing to say about systems that are more robustly
specked than the CR.
It doesn't matter that the CR doesn't understand Chinese and that nothing in it
understands Chinese either (as Searle often notes in making his case) BECAUSE
THE CR IS UNDERSPECKED (as Dennett's argument points out, as well). That is,
the CR doesn't contain enough processes doing enough things in the right
(interactive) way to achieve what brains achieve. Thus the failure of the CR to
understand Chinese says nothing about what its constituent elements might be
capable of doing in other configurations and arrangements.
> But as I've mentioned, you continue to conflate the third axiom with the
> conclusion, just as does Dennett.
>
> -gts
>
>
But elsewhere you distinguished between arguing against the third premise, as I
have done, and arguing against the CRA qua argument as a whole as you suggest
Dennett and other official (more heavily credentialed) Searle critics have done
(thus allowing you to say that they at least understand the third premise while
some, I[?] don't)!
And yet here you now assert that I am making the same mistake in my argument
that you have imputed to Dennett, namely that we are both arguing against the
"third axiom" (which I call the "third premise")!
So, on your view, my argument and Dennett's are of a piece though Dennett (you
at least seem willing to acknowledge) understands the third premise (and
presumably grasps its truth) while I don't -- even while we're both
"conflat[ing] the third axiom with the [CRA's] conclusion" in arguing against
it?
I think defending Searle's position (as you are doing) finally leads to such
convoluted claims as this because it always seems to come down to precisely
these kinds of contradictions!
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
