Author: Djordje Vidanovic
Date: 02:09:11 03/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 15, 2001 at 00:20:32, Christophe Theron wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 18:49:25, Djordje Vidanovic wrote: > >>On March 14, 2001 at 15:04:28, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>On March 14, 2001 at 14:07:36, Christophe Theron wrote: >>> >>>>On March 14, 2001 at 13:03:27, José Antônio Fabiano Mendes wrote: >>>> >>>>> http://personalidentity.tripod.com/id27.htm >>>> >>>> >>>>Part 2 is a real bullshit. The author tries to demonstrate that computers do not >>>>"know" chess, and he actually demonstrates that he does not "know" computers and >>>>that he does not "know" the human brain. >>>> >>>>I have heard more meaningful comments in a pub, even very late at night. >>> >>>Ah yes, Searle's argument is clearly refuted by the well known reasoning: >>>'Christophe says it is bullshit, therefore it is bullshit'. I happen to >>>disagree with Searle's Chinese Room argument, but I don't think its as clear as >>>just saying it is a pile of crap. In fact, I think he makes some very good >>>points. >>> >>>Peter >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Christophe >> >> >>I tend to agree with Peter. Searle's argument is based on a simple stipulation >>that the coded instructions of a program (Chinese character manipulation program >>in the given case) are insufficient to account for the meanings of the symbols >>or of the set of sentences generated with their help. This, further, implies >>that functional, or computational, explanations are insufficient to account for >>referential semantics (plain English: reference), and, as such, for >>intentionality which is the hallmark of humans. >> >>This kind of argument can be criticised, but not dismissed lightly. I've been >>having problems for quite some time with it :-)) > > >I don't. > >Watch a neuron or a transistor very closely and tell me why the former is >carrying meaning and the later is not. > >Then tell me the meaning of "meaning". Or you could start with this maybe? > >And what's this "intentionality" stuff? For me it sounds like a word invented by >marketing people trying to hype for human's superiority. > > > Christophe Christophe, Of course, there is an apparently easy way out of the morass, by simply claiming that there is no intentionality, and that we postulate intentionality as an artifact of our explanatory procedures. However, what are we to then do with two other possible claims? Such as: a. there is some proper part of a person, say the brain, that is exclusively causally responsible for our ability to refer (ability to refer = intentionality!), i.e. have rationality; b. persons have intentionality, but there is NO specific part of the brain to be solely causally in charge for it. And, no, intentionality is NOT a marketing device. It's been in use in philosophy for centuries. And no, again, it hasn't been used to promote human superiority. Robin Smith (below) points at yet another difficult issue, started by Searle in Part 3, that has to do with which parts of our brain and what processes are liable to introspection and which are not, together with possible implications. I simply have no time to try to discuss that now -- gotta go to my classes and produce some evidence for human superiority :-) *** Djordje
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.