On Fri, Sep 14, 2012 at 11:25 AM, John Clark <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Exactly. It is no different than concluding that brains cannot understand
anything because inter-atomic forces do not understand anything.
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
For more options, visit this group at