[Wittrs] Re: The CRA: Is the Third Premise True?
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 08:56:45 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> But as Searle points out in his answer to Dennett in _The Mystery
>> of Consciousness_ his actual CRT shows that syntax cannot
>> produce either conscious OR unconscious understanding.
>
> I am quite content to speak of understanding in either way.
You should in that case accept the 3rd axiom at face value.
The CRT and the 3rd axiom show merely that the syntax of a program does not
suffice for understanding the semantics of a language, consciously or
otherwise. Period.
If you could set aside your biases about strong AI and see through the lens of
a philosopher of language then you would see that syntax is neither
constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics, no matter how we conceive of
consciousness.
There is nothing else to the 3rd axiom. But you/Dennett try to make it into
something else -- you introduce a giant load of balderdash about consciousness
and dualism and what you call system properties and so on and so on and so on.
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
