[Wittrs] Re: Understanding "Understanding" in Searle
- From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 15 Mar 2010 14:32:42 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
>
> "The CRA exhibits behaviours in response to an input of Chinese language. It
> must, then have a source of those behaviours. The only thing in the CRA
> which is capable of behaving is Searle.
Nope.
> > --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@> wrote:
> >
> > > to Searle, understanding is a qualitative aspect of experience, a quale.
When it comes right down to it, yup.
Worse than that, when it comes right down to it, Searle is simply asserting
that humans understand and non-humans don't, period. And that's pretty much
what your respondent is saying above, too.
Remember, people like Davidson and Millikan believe in Swampman, who could be
an indistinguishable physical and behavioral double (even better than a
zombie!), and they would *still* deny it has real thoughts, cognition,
understanding, whatever. People say the darnedest things.
Josh
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
