[Wittrs] Where's the Dualism?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 17 May 2010 07:03:35 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>there is no dualistic presumption in the CRT. it is a thought
>>experiment. you imagine yourself in a certain situation and you draw a
>>conclusion. Searle draws a conclusion in the first person, that 'I do
>>not understand chinese'. we've been using the third person analogue of
>>Searle's conclusion, that there is no understanding (of chinese) in
>>the CR.
>The presumption occurs in the CRA which is built on the CR. By itself
>the CR is just a scenario.
I agree that the CRT is just a thought experiment; and, that there is no
dualistic presumption in it.
I disagree with your claim that there is a dualistic presumption built
into the CRA. as I demonstrated by presenting a formal proof of the CRA,
no presumption of dualism is required to derive the conclusion of the
CRA from its axioms.
>The issue is what does it tell us, what conclusions are we obliged to
>draw from it?
I agree.
>The conclusion that what the constituents in the CR cannot do in the
>CR they cannot do in any other R either (a room more robustly
>configured with a more complex system) DEPENDS on a belief that it is
>the absence of what we are looking for in the CR that matters for the
>conclusion. The way you get to that belief (that it matters) is by
>assuming that what we are looking for must be present in recognizable
>form in the CR for the constituents of the CR to be implicated in its
>production.
we already know that syntactical operations are present in the CRT; and,
that is the only input factor at issue in the CRT/CRA.
we already know that the man in the CRT understands english but does not
understand chinese. those are the relevant output factors.
>>you've acknowledged ... that there is no understanding (of chinese)
>>in the CR; and, presumably, you do not admit to being a dualist or to
>>having any latent dualistic tendencies.
>What does my being a dualist have to do with whether Searle is, based
>on HIS argument?
nothing; and, that's my point.
you agree that there is no understanding in the chinese room and that
there are syntactical operations happening there. that doesn't make you
a dualist. so far, dualism is neither presuppose nor entailed.
>MY argument about Searle's implicit dualism is based on what must be
>assumed to reach the conclusion that the CR demonstrates that what the
>CR's constituents cannot do in the CR they cannot do in any other R
>either.
talk of the 'constituents' of the CR imagined in the CRT and of what
they can/can't do is misleading, at best. at worst, the way you usually
do it, this is how you cheat.
>>>By "more of the same" let's be clear. What I have in mind is ... a
>>>CR that is more like a brain, i.e., capable of running processes that
>>>do the kinds of things brains do.
>>what you can add to the CR as described in the CRT is more/faster
>>syntactic operations; otherwise, you are adding something that is more
>>than just syntax. that would be cheating.
>This is your mistake (or one of them). I am talking about adding
>functions (different tasks that go beyond the tasks performed by
>Searle's CR), all performed by the same kinds of constituents found in
>the CR, and putting them together in a certain (interactive) way.
attempting to add 'functions' or 'tasks that go beyond the tasks
performed by Searle's CR' begs the question of whether syntactical
operations can perform those tasks.
for example, you recently posted a set of three lists. one of the
functions mentioned in the list you said would be most relevant to those
interested in creating a synthetic consciousness was 'believing'.
but you can't just add what you call a 'functional belief unit' to the
CR because that begs the question of whether syntactical operations
cause or constitute beliefs.
does a binary arithmetic operation have a belief?
does a register for doing binary arithmetic operations have a belief?
all you can add to the CR is 'more of the same'. more/faster syntactical
operations, more lines of code, more processors (make them work in
parallel if you like), etc.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
