[Wittrs] Re: What is Making a Conflation, er, a Distinction, Alex?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2010 00:37:27 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> Gordon writes:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> Stuart responds:
>
>
> "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."
>
>
> And that is different from Searle how?!!!!!!!!
>
Because Searle says there is no understanding in the CR because nothing in it
understands and the room doesn't either. The room doesn't, of course, because
qua a system it is inadequately specked. Nothing in the room understands
because understanding is not a basic property of any given element but a
function of a sufficiently robust system.
Searle seems to agree with this re: brains but then falls away from it with
regard to computers. Of course he inadequately explicates/conceives of how
brains might do it and so gets by on an inarticulated supposition re: brains,
thereby masking the contradiction (that what he grants for brains he denies for
computers -- if it's good for the goose it's good for the gander and vice versa
but Searle wants to deny that).
>
>
> Stuart continues:
>
> "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."
>
>
> Well, sounds like you're an idiot. You are actually trying to conclude that
> Searle doesn't consider a possibility which he obviously does.
>
Now you're pissing me off again, Budd. I will try to hold back but if you are
again going to start with the insults . . .
It's plain to me, and has been for some time, that you really don't grasp what
I've been saying. But you conclude that "Hauser is a dud". Remarkable!
> Walter at Analytic was right on the money. Arguing with you is like arguing
> with a shoe.
>
Walter made some good arguments even if I think he made some blunders as well.
You have yet to make even one good argument.
> Let me help you out. I'm going to keep my shoe on while kicking myself in
> the ass. This surely has about the same chance of enlightening you than
> anything I may have previously typed.
>
> And I'm not joking. You are to understand in no uncertain terms that it has
> been hilarious arguing with you. I love it that you have painted yourself
> into a position where you have to be either joking or benighted.
>
You really are at sea here, aren't you? I'm amazed that Neil keeps trying to
engage with you. But then he probably doesn't have the history I have with you
and doesn't know what he's in for.
> Congratulations for being able to say: Hey, did you see how long I made him
> type?
>
> But did you?
>
> Cheers,
> Budd
>
>
Ah, a waste of time then, after all, just as I have come to expect with you.
Good thing I didn't bother to respond to your earlier missive. What a colosssal
waste of time THAT would have been.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
