[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 11 Apr 2010 01:08:52 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
<snip>
> > SWM:
> >The issue is what does it take to generate "an act with mental content
> >(semantic)"
>
> Searle's point is that the subjective experience of understanding can
> not be produced by the manipulation of symbols according to rules.
>
Dennett's point is that subjective experience can be explained as the interplay
of many different perfectly physical processes performing various (and
different, though interacting) operations.
> Dennett's counterpoint (such as it is) is that if he can make the
> Chinese Room more robust, he will eventually be able to produce an
> electronic zombie.
>
Yes, more robust by performing a lot more functions than the mere rote
responding the CR is specked by Searle to do.
> Mirsky's point (if it is a point) is that Dennett is not a Chalmers'
> style property dualist because Searle is a Cartesian style interactive
> substance dualist.
>
> Joe
Nope. What Dennett is has nothing to do with what Searle is and Searle is what
he is based on the claims implicit in his CRA.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
