[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Understanding vs Experiencing Understanding
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 02:08:30 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> SWM wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>SWM wrote:
>
> >>>Dennett does not change the meaning of the term "understanding" (as
> >>>we might find it in a dictionary). Dennett does aim to change the
> >>>understanding we have of the term "understanding" by giving us a
> >>>different way to conceive it (i.e., to see it for what it is, etc.).
>
> >>the point of the CRT is that the man in the CR does not *experience*
> >>understanding.
>
> >>how Dennett understands understanding is beside the point.
>
> >No one disputes that we experience our understanding and certainly
> >Dennett does not. The question on the table is what that is and, of
> >course, how does it come about?
>
> how does it happen that there is consciousness in an otherwise insensate
> universe? that's a fundamental question in the science and philosophy of
> consciousness.
>
> the point of the CRT/CRA is that syntactical operations do not cause or
> constitute the experience of understanding chinese.
>
> Joe
>
And the point of Dennett's thesis is to take away the "mystery" of it all, the
very thing you have fixed on above. Dennett shows that one can conceive of
consciousness qua experience qua subjectivity, etc., as a function of certain
kinds of processes on a physical platform. If one can, of course, then there is
no reason to think anything more is needed.
The aim of Searle's argument is to show, logically, why Dennett's kind of
thesis MUST be wrong. But Searle's argument is an exercise in flawed logic as
it attempts to shut the door on what looks otherwise like an empirical question
by aiming to prove that consciousness is not reducible to anything going on on
a physical platform by presuming that it can't be! (And yes, this puts him in
contradiction with what he grants about brains but that is a problem for him,
not for those who think the CRA is mistaken.)
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
