[Wittrs] Re: formal arguments
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 17:44:23 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Thu, 4/15/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> > Look, the CRA is about whether so-called "Strong AI" is
> > possible. "Strong AI" is Searle's name for the thesis that
> > one can produce consciousness via programs on computers. So
> > the issue IS entirely about what a computer can or cannot
> > do, i.e., can it CAUSE consciousness as brains do.
> >
> > If it's not about THAT, the whole exercise is pointless.
>
> Right, but the CR thought experiment/3rd axiom is not "about that".
Wrong. There is nothing to show if it's not about that because no one thinks
that syntax IS semantics.
> It's about syntax and semantics and nothing else -- just one leg of the three
> legged stool that leads to the conclusion that programs don't cause minds.
>
And it's the stool that's the issue.
> For whatever reason, you can't see clear to separate the three legs of the
> stool. You confabulate and imagine arguments that don't exist.
>
The reason is simple. NO ONE THINKS SYNTAX IS SEMANTICS. The issue is what does
it take to produce "semantics"?
If non-identity doesn't imply non-causality then the fact that syntax isn't
semantics is irrelevant to the conclusion.
> The actual CRA is very simple. Given A, B and C, D is true. And A means A and
> nothing else, B means B and nothing else, and C means C and nothing else.
>
The CRA purports to lead to certain conclusions. That's why it's called the
Chinese Room ARGUMENT -- CRA.
> > I am challenging the validity of that conclusion for the
> > reason that the third premise is misleading BECAUSE it
> > equivocates its meaning, shifting from a denial of identity
> > (undoubtedly true) to a denial of causality (not undoubedtly
> > true based on the CR and very likely false
>
> The "denial of causality" argument does not exist in the 3rd axiom, which
> tells us only that no agent of any kind can obtain semantic understanding
> from syntax.
Then it doesn't support the conclusion of the CRA and the argument is shown to
be mistaken.
> You imagine a "denial of causality" claim in the 3rd axiom because it exists
> in the conclusion (where syntactic programs don't *cause* minds) and you
> don't like the conclusion.
>
> gts
>
The conclusion is shown to be unsustained by the premises because a denial of
identity does not imply a denial of causality. This has nothing to do with my
preferences, especially since I initially thought the CRA was right and agreed
with its conclusions. Only on more careful consideration and analysis did I
realize something was wrong with it and then just what that something was.
It was two things:
1) The misleading equivocation in the third premise; and
2) The underlying presumption of dualism in the CR which leads to the
conflation of the two readings in the equivocal third premise.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
