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: bigfletch8 on 1 Jun 2010 01:30 On Jun 1, 9:33 am, 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. Except one has life and on doesnt....and never the twain shall meet. "Frankie Steins Grandson." BOfL
From: bigfletch8 on 1 Jun 2010 01:39 On Jun 1, 12:00 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > 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. Still hasnt caught up to Socrates, but they were on different 'pages', and those pages are not in community chronological order, but provide a connection for those on the road 'more travelled'. > > So let us think with applied ethics here about what your saying. Thats what Plato did, and interpreted him within his own frame of reference. Ignored or shunned ? Those who havnt caught up with Plato are not able to, and those who have moved on, feel no need to. How's that for applied ethics? Does it pass your little test? BOfL > 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. - Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
From: huge on 1 Jun 2010 01:55 bigfletch8(a)gmail.com : > On Jun 1, 9:33 am, 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. > > Except one has life and on doesnt....and never the twain shall meet. > "Frankie Steins Grandson." > > BOfL That depends on what processes you consider significant. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: Tim Golden BandTech.com on 1 Jun 2010 10:19 On May 31, 8:43 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 31, 5:10 am, "Tim Golden BandTech.com" <tttppp...(a)yahoo.com> > wrote:> On May 31, 6:48 am, Spade <javed47ras...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 31, 5:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of > > <-> > > > Whatever communication we attempt on the mind will have to be in > > language. This restriction is unconditional, except for what one > > attempts within one's own mind. > > Straw man argument. Searle never made such a claim. He just proposes Hmmmm.... I don't understand the straw man argument. Searle seems to be your straw man. I am not arguing for Searle. I am making an informational statement. I would lean on the Buddhists first to posit a practice of mind awareness. They are full of a tricky language of abstractions that expose the struggle to express the places that they can go in their minds. Well, they have proof of some of these abilities within the material world. To what degree is the language of expression done evolving? This awareness that the procedure is not complete brings these subjects to life. We do not merely practice completed ideas. We develop new ideas. The structure is incomplete, and at the basis of the propagation of information is language, but the notion of language itself as a set of prefixed entities is a false assumption. This goes in tension with the difficulty of creating new language, for that relies upon the propagation of that language. The internal self that you discover will likely be hampered, not only here, but even from within. The practitioners of the internal mind know how to quiet the word generating facilities and look with something more fundamental. As to their ability to describe what they find, well, they are very intelligent to dissuade this attempt, but perhaps equally caught with the puzzle as we are. If one finds an internal language of coherence then it probably should be expressed, even if fraudulently, and this is the procedure of how we arrive in this language that we are using, and the undeniable effect that a basis of mind as prelingual will suffer an informatic breakdown, regardless of anything that Searle has to say, unless you have something relevant. This is a mathematical argument. This piece of swiss cheese may be quite tasty, but I am open to there being holes in it, and definitely curious as what those holes are. Just as a Buddhist can slow his heartrate to a crawl, we could posit some device that would allow two Buddhists to connect to each other through a direct neural channel, somewhat alternative to a linguistic restriction. I am thinking more of an electronic device rather than the claims on ESP and so forth, but I suppose those who believe in that effect are not so far away, informationally speaking. Scientifically we would like the sort of proof as a man who can hold his breath for long periods of time. We are not so far away from that interconnected practice here on usenet. But the language barrier is very apparent. Then too, emotionality is likewise blatant. Still Immoralist, I know you are a very strong poster and I enjoy reading you, and do not mean harm by dismantling the straw man argument. It would be great to work out some agreement from first order principles. - Tim > that areas of philosophy will become more or less important as > knowledge of the world increases. Of course language philosophy will > always be needed as grammar will always be needed to use any kind of > predicate logic or common language. > > Again Searle merely claims that philosophers of mind will be in a > better position that other philosophers since their system is already > designed to deal with the metaphysics of whatever brain researchers > discover; namely when time goes on and these researchers discover how > the activities of the brain are completely enough to explain even the > most complex human experiences. > > > It would be hoped that such a > > discovery could be translated out into a language, though this could > > require a new word, and perhaps many pages of dialog to even attempt a > > clean translation. I'm not clear on whether internal thought can > > transcend language completely, but it must to some degree, otherwise > > there would be no language development. The trouble runs into a big > > slowdown when one attempts to communicate in a language that others do > > not understand. Until adopters of the language communicate back and > > forth there is no actual verification that the translation is clean. > > There can be alot of miscommunication going on. There can be > > fraudulent language. There can be false belief systems. We are stuck > > with this. In some ways better off than when there were just maybe > > five unique words uttered by hominids, but worse off for all of the > > conflicts. > > > Is what I just wrote what you will read? Taking your mind awareness as > > fundamental then my thoughts were first translated into a language, > > transferred, and then reverse translated by your mind. There are two > > option for miscommunication on a potentially flawed basis. I don't > > wish to be completely discouraging and prefer to simply state that the > > problem is open. As to which is the basis; the language or the mind; > > we have to grant the mind as more fundamental, but as to the freedoms > > of the mind, well, they are hampered by the language, presuming that > > communication to another is desired. Even communication to ones self > > may be possible, as a man might draw something on paper without ever > > sharing it. Especially mistaken thoughts not fully developed are a > > fine instance, but here if we presume the mistake is of the mind, then > > we will never expose the mistakes of the language. > > > - Tim
From: Immortalist on 1 Jun 2010 23:17
On May 31, 10:00 pm, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: > 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. > > -- I suppose I would share that view, they are good for some uses. But in my opinion it is good to default to good scientific evidence. Even good scientists performing research will challenge other scientists theories with counter analogies where the argument form is preserved but the subjects and predicates of the premises and the conclusion are preserved. I debating, politics, law in the courtroom, these counter-analogies may be better than good hard evidence, in communicating ones ideas to others. But when if comes to the mind, science and research, good evidence and how to talk about the evidence is probably going to make the philosophy of language and the theory of knowledge, take a back seat. Same with politics, social philosophy and civics, where ethics and applied ethics have become more predominant that other areas of philosophy. But your not promoting some monolithic permanent place for each branch of philosophy never to become changed to fit the current changing reality, right? |