On Thu, Sept 13, 2012 Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com> wrote:
> The menu is not the meal.
In other words X is not "X" and that is perfectly true, use and mention are
indeed not the same, but they are closely related.
> To my mind, the fact that you have particular animus toward the Chinese
> Room can only be because on some level you know that it is a relatively
> simple way of proving something that you are in deep denial about. Why else
> would it bother you in particular?
Searle's Chinese Room bothers me because it is so fabulously DUMB! What
makes it so idiotic is its conclusion: The funny little man doesn't
understand anything therefore the entire Chinese Room doesn't understand
anything. Dumb dumb dumb.
Searle doesn't even attempt to explain why if there is understanding
anywhere it must be centered on the silly little man, apparently he's such
a crumby philosopher it never even occurred to him that he's assuming the
very thing he's trying to prove!! Even Aristotle never did anything that
stupid. You could easily get rid of the little man altogether and replace
him with a 1950's punch card sorting machine, it would be slow but mush
faster than the man and produce fewer errors, and in such a situation I
would agree that the punch card machine was not conscious, and I would also
agree that a very very small part of a system, any system, does not have
all the properties of the entire system.
John K Clark
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to email@example.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at