[Wittrs] Re: The Chinese Room Argument's Presumption, CRAP

  • From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 20:16:29 -0000

--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@> wrote:
> <snip>> Stuart,
> >
> > you've been running your mouth about the Chinese Room Argument's
> > Presumption, CRAP, for several years now; and, you were already well
> > underway when I came in.
> >
> Actually I had been steering clear of the CRA debate for the most part here, 
> not going into any real detail (as I did on Analytics and Borders or the 
> Philosophy of Language lists) pretty much until Budd showed up and started in 
> again on it

I think I simply responded to something you might have said!  No?

> and then J took up his cudgel, claiming to have read my past remarks on other 
> lists and asserting I had no understanding of Searle.

I aver that Stuart has a choice.  Is he (are you?) flaming and knowing better 
or is he (are you?) just not understanding Searle when he (you) get(s) him 

Stuart writes:

>>>>>>>>Noting Searle is implicitly a dualist of the Cartesian variety is to 
>>>>>>>>note that he holds an idea of mind (even if not fully expressed) that 
>>>>>>>>is consistent with the idea of mind held by Descartes and which has 
>>>>>>>>come, in traditional philosophy, to be called "substance 

As I've hinted already today, this works the other way around.  If one assumes 
weak or strong AI to be as good as it gets (Wittgenstein influencing the way we 
do science?????  Heaven forfend!), while acknowledging that that might involve 
rejecting the thesis that minds have semantic contents, then for one to claim 
otherwise (that minds have semantic contents) might amount to a charge of 
substance dualism.

It is really a rather stupid effort that should go punished as soon as 
possible.  I started six years ago..  Apparently, Stuart is into really good 
spankings!  LOL!

There's just no winning with him.  I think I'll end up with carpel tunnel 
before he admits to flaming.  And if he doesn't admit to flaming, we can just 
reply to his words while he forgets what he said as well as that we have.

Philosophy (as practiced by some, including certain intro course instructors) 
seems the only discipline where one has to forget what one knows in order to 
speak about what they originally knew as if recently acquired, but with caveats 
and weak legs to the point where it is respectable to speak as if one really 
doesn't have any brains to speak of.

Continuing the autobiography, I get stupider by the post here, being told 
earlier that only the smart ones don't post at all.

Well, teaching is a bitch!  LOL

I told long ago by JL Speranza:  Never mind pedagogy!



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

Other related posts: