[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:19:16 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 4/7/10, iro3isdx <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> >> Searle's third premise entails a very simple claim:
> >> nobody and nothing can understand symbols solely from
> >> manipulating them according to their shapes.
> >
> > The Systems reply acknowledges this, and responds "So
> > what?"
>
> No, the systems reply does not acknowledge this.
>
> According to the systems reply, the room itself can understand the symbols
> solely from manipulating them according to their shapes, or from having some
> entity within the room manipulate them according to their shapes.
>
The point of the systems reply is to note that consciousness, or understanding
(a feature of consciousness), may be a system level property rather than a
property of any of the processes making up the system. The persistent refusal
to consider this possibility (the fruit of a fixation on the irreducibility of
mental features) makes the system reply seem off the mark to Searlean
supporters of the CRA like you, Gordon.
> > The claim is that the system as a whole is not merely
> > manipulating symbols, but is also making use of a database of stored
> > knowledge.
>
> A database of stored symbols, you mean.
>
> -gts
>
>
Of course. The more complex phenomena we know as perceiving, thinking,
remembering, believing, reasoning, understanding, etc., are all functions of
combinations of more basic manipulations which are not, themselves, conscious,
comprehending, etc. THAT's the point of the system reply and why the CRA
finally fails.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
