[Wittrs] Re: Who beat Kasparov?

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:52:27 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Fri, 3/19/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

>> There exists no understanding in the CR, Stuart,
>> because *syntax by itself does not give semantics*. This is
>> a fact in organic brains, including yours, just as it is a
>> fact in computers. 
> Then your conclusion is already built into the argument and
> it's circular in which case it's not logically valid. You do
> have the intuition you are expressing here, no doubt about
> it. But if Searle were just making an argument on intuition
> he would have no need to lay out logical steps as he does.

Nothing circular going on here. The CR thought experiment merely *illustrates* 
a simple axiom which should seem obvious to anyone who thinks about it. That 
axiom, combined with the first two, lead logically to the conclusion that 
programs don't cause minds.

If I wanted to write a book titled _Syntax By Itself Is Neither Constitutive Of 
Nor Sufficient for Semantics for Dummies_ then I would want to include in that 
book a story with pictures about a man in a Chinese room who cannot, no matter 
how hard he tries, understand Chinese symbols given that he has only 
information about how to manipulate the symbols according to their forms. 

It's not a complicated concept, really!



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: