Philosophy of mind is more important than the philosophy of language and epistemology
in [Logic]
|
Prev: historical query
Next: instructor solution manual for Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach 2e by Russell, Norvig
From: huge on 31 May 2010 23:25 sarge : > On 31 Maj, 03:12, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: >> Immortalist : >> >> <should be marked as quoted?> >> >> > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of >> > mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. For >> > most of the twentieth century the philosophy of language was "first >> > philosophy." Other branches of philosophy were seen as derived from >> > the philosophy of language and dependent on results in the philosophy >> > of language for their solution. >> >> > The center of attention has now moved from language to mind. >> <snippage> >> > Mind: A Brief Introduction - John R. Searle >> >> Searle's reputation itself has fallen because of the failures >> intuition pumps like 'philosophical zombies' and 'Chinese symbols' have >> been largely destroyed, IMNSHO, by the likes of Minsky, Dennett, and >> Hofstadter. If he thinks philosophy of mind is important, he should >> do it better! >> >> -- >> huge: Not on my time you don't. > > Dennett and Minsky would agree with Searle, however on this issue. As > far as his two 'intuition pumps' they are both still written about > regularly. So they are still pumping intuitions. Not too many people > are pure Platonists either, nevertheless Plato has a good repuation. > It's a strange way to think of judging someone's worth. I'm actually more interested in whether he's right or wrong. He is wrong. If you find him worthy of reading for the poetry, good on you. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Immortalist on 31 May 2010 23:43 > >> > Well if you learned to read properly you would see that he was > >> > comparing three branches of philosophy and which have declined > >> > somewhat > > >> What, exactly, would you accept as signs of decline? > > > Maybe "decline" isn't the right word. I should have said which are > > currently more important in light of the current issues, technologies > > and research, needs philosophical analysis. > > > Personally I see the emergence of fMRI scanners and the associated > > "newly" invented research methodology, as probably causing mind/brain > > philosophy to accend in relative importance. Just as particular social > > and political issues cause applied ethics to punk the rest of philosophy > > and the philosophers better adapted to deal with where the world is > > going and not worried about some academic dispute wank off. > > That is all very good, but what I know about Searle suggests that he > is one of the most persistent wankers. See my other answer posted > recently. > > Thank you, his is a good idea on the direction of philosophy and the need for good philosophers to step up to the task of these brain scanners, current brain science, and recent Evolutionary Psychology. Is there any way to summarize your complaints about some of Searle's old stuff when he was making up the subject?
From: Immortalist on 1 Jun 2010 00:00 On May 31, 6:33 pm, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: > Immortalist : > <snippage> > > > Then you agree that Searle's version of Monist token/token theory is not > > false or explains best empirical science's finding on the brain, or were > > you trying to say that absolutely all and any theory of the mind is > > false? > > Is this really an either - or type of problem? > Who, besides Searle, even still address token/token theory? > > Here is Hofstadter on Searle's philosophy of mind from "I Am a Strange > Loop, p. 81: > > "...it makes perfect sense to discuss living animals and self-guiding robots in the same part of this > book, for today's technological achievements are bringing us ever closer to understanding what goes > on in living systems that survive in complex environments. Such successes give the lie to the tired > dogma endlessly repeated by John Searle that computers are forever doomed to mere 'simulation' of > the processes of life. If an automaton can drive itself a distance of two hundred miles across a > tremendously forbidding desert terrain, how can this feat be called merely a 'simulation"? It is > certainly as genuine an act of survival in the hostile environment as that of a mosquito flying about a > room and avoiding being swatted." > > <snip pages of quotes> > -- > huge: Not on my time you don't. Ya, I read that old book and agree. I think I still support some sort of functionalism but am not sure. I am just open. But all these philosophers have made new trails in discovering how to communicate about things and processes that recent research deems necessarily to be discussed. I think most philosophers or anyone who writes stuff down has made some mistakes but still there is something right about what they say, even Plato was correct on a bunch of things and still is. So let us think with applied ethics here about what your saying. You have some sort of standard about how many mistakes a philosopher can make before he is to be ignored and shunned. You have not describe the criteria for such a standard nor have you provided any examples of some philosophers who pass your little test.
From: huge on 1 Jun 2010 00:07 Immortalist : >> >> > Well if you learned to read properly you would see that he was >> >> > comparing three branches of philosophy and which have declined >> >> > somewhat >> >> >> What, exactly, would you accept as signs of decline? >> >> > Maybe "decline" isn't the right word. I should have said which are >> > currently more important in light of the current issues, technologies >> > and research, needs philosophical analysis. >> >> > Personally I see the emergence of fMRI scanners and the associated >> > "newly" invented research methodology, as probably causing mind/brain >> > philosophy to accend in relative importance. Just as particular >> > social and political issues cause applied ethics to punk the rest of >> > philosophy and the philosophers better adapted to deal with where the >> > world is going and not worried about some academic dispute wank off. >> >> That is all very good, but what I know about Searle suggests that he is >> one of the most persistent wankers. See my other answer posted >> recently. >> >> >> > Thank you, his is a good idea on the direction of philosophy and the > need for good philosophers to step up to the task of these brain > scanners, current brain science, and recent Evolutionary Psychology. > > Is there any way to summarize your complaints about some of Searle's old > stuff when he was making up the subject? Searle made up the subject of either philosophy of mind or of cognitive science. I'm not sure that he made up the subject of philosophical zombies. He probably did make up the Chinese Room argument. I find both philosophical zombies and the Chinese Room argument unconvincing. I hinted as what is known as the "Robot Reply" to the Chinese Room argument in the Hofstadter quote, and there are other replies I also agree with. As to philosophical zombies, I just don't see something that behaves exactly like a real human as possibly not having human experiences. Dualism just does not hold water. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Immortalist on 1 Jun 2010 00:12
On May 31, 9:07 pm, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: > Immortalist : > > > > >> >> > Well if you learned to read properly you would see that he was > >> >> > comparing three branches of philosophy and which have declined > >> >> > somewhat > > >> >> What, exactly, would you accept as signs of decline? > > >> > Maybe "decline" isn't the right word. I should have said which are > >> > currently more important in light of the current issues, technologies > >> > and research, needs philosophical analysis. > > >> > Personally I see the emergence of fMRI scanners and the associated > >> > "newly" invented research methodology, as probably causing mind/brain > >> > philosophy to accend in relative importance. Just as particular > >> > social and political issues cause applied ethics to punk the rest of > >> > philosophy and the philosophers better adapted to deal with where the > >> > world is going and not worried about some academic dispute wank off. > > >> That is all very good, but what I know about Searle suggests that he is > >> one of the most persistent wankers. See my other answer posted > >> recently. > > > Thank you, his is a good idea on the direction of philosophy and the > > need for good philosophers to step up to the task of these brain > > scanners, current brain science, and recent Evolutionary Psychology. > > > Is there any way to summarize your complaints about some of Searle's old > > stuff when he was making up the subject? > > Searle made up the subject of either philosophy of mind or of cognitive science. > I'm not sure that he made up the subject of philosophical zombies. He probably > did make up the Chinese Room argument. I find both philosophical zombies and > the Chinese Room argument unconvincing. I hinted as what is known as the > "Robot Reply" to the Chinese Room argument in the Hofstadter quote, and there > are other replies I also agree with. As to philosophical zombies, I just don't see > something that behaves exactly like a real human as possibly not having human > experiences. Dualism just does not hold water. > > -- > huge: Not on my time you don't. Thanks I will reconsider some of those issues and try to start scrap later, peace. |