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 1 Jun 2010 00:25 Immortalist : > 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. As I said, if you enjoy reading Searle, more power to you. But his arguments about the impossibility of strong AI, like the Chinese Room, are just wrong. When you've got a robot that can go across a desert without help, that is the beginning of strong AI, and it will just get stronger. A great *part* of Searle's career has been of no more importance than being a nay-sayer. I've been reading him, unfortunately, since the late '70s. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Olrik on 1 Jun 2010 00:58 Le 2010-05-31 20:36, Immortalist a �crit : > On May 30, 8:34 pm, Olrik<olrik...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> Le 2010-05-30 20:25, Immortalist a �crit : >>> "The philosophy of mind is unique among contemporary philosophical >>> subjects, in that all of the most famous and influential theories are >>> false - [We need] to rescue the truth from the overwhelming urge to >>> falsehood. >> >> Indeed. >> > > 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? No, I just think you're wasting your life. Sorry. Masturbation : don't think about, just DO IT. You'll thank me later. P.S.: Better yet, get a girlfriend! P.P.S.: Or a boyfriend, whatever is your choice!
From: huge on 1 Jun 2010 01:00 Immortalist : > On May 31, 8:06 pm, sarge <greasethew...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> 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 love reading all of Dennett's stuff but when he talks about > spotlighting particular features in little stories does he somehow mean > that they were designed to make us ignore other important contradictory > aspects of the stories? I always thought these were just > counter-analogies and possible world scenarios which are very important > ways to consider that strength of all arguments; <snippage> Instead of reproducing those page of introductory philosophical text, I'll just give some general ideas about them and let people who are interested find the bulk, in the thread, one post above. A lot of this is codified in modal logic, which makes an interesting study. The unfortunate thing about it, however, is that the concept of 'possible worlds' on which many versions are based is not crystal clear. I prefer Carnap's "state descriptions" which seem less metaphysical. At any rate, you can get consistency and completeness proofs in modal logic just as you can in first order predicate calculus but with the added jollity of theorems like 'if a thing is necessarily possible, then it is possible,' and such. So certain kinds of mistakes are definitely detectable, but one can always argue about what constitutes correct and incorrect state descriptions in a particular universe of discourse. If you say there is a world where cornucopias parse parsnips, I might disagree. Only in the cases where we both agree can modal logic help us along. Intuition pumps seem to me sometimes like possible world scenarios, but just as often they seem to be elaborate analogies and metaphors. You can say you believe them or not, and disagreeing about them is fun. But I have to respect hard science more. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: huge on 1 Jun 2010 01:12 huge : > 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 Typo. Insert 'neither' here. > the subject of either philosophy of mind nor 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: bigfletch8 on 1 Jun 2010 01:22
On Jun 1, 8:29 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 30, 8:01 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > > On May 31, 8:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of > > > mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. > > > So what did it used to be, the philosophy of mountaineering? > > Well if you learned to read properly you would see that he was > comparing three branches of philosophy and which have declined > somewhat and which have come to dominate; all the while determined by > the direction of empirical science and its recent findings. > > > Philosophy has always been 'of the mind, about the mind'. > > > To go 'beyond language' , use telepathy. > > > "Rescue the truth?"...I can see why he has dilemma. > > > "He May As Well Try To Cath The Wind" Donovan Leach. Its is not surprising you see so much straw. You say my interpretation is distorted. "I cant read correctly"...and then accuse me of doing exactly what you are. I respect your opinion, even your need to practise hypocrisy. BOfL > > The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a > person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or > misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" is > fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply > does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as > well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the > person. > > http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html > > > > > BOfL- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - |