From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!gatech!dscatl!gwinnett!depsych!rc Wed Feb  5 11:56:39 EST 1992
Article 3442 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!gatech!gatech!dscatl!gwinnett!depsych!rc
>From: rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Searle and the Curse of the Mediocre Philosop
Message-ID: <BVskFB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM>
Date: 3 Feb 92 15:57:58 GMT
References: <1992Feb2.165723.184@lrc.edu>
Lines: 104

lehman_ds@lrc.edu writes:

> In article <1992Jan24.033203.7991@husc3.harvard.edu>, zeleny@zariski.harvard.
> > In article <1992Jan23.111837.149@lrc.edu> 
> > lehman_ds@lrc.edu writes:
> > 
> >>In article <16890@castle.ed.ac.uk>, 
> >>cam@castle.ed.ac.uk (Chris Malcolm) writes:
> > 
> >>> In article <FN6qeB2w164w@depsych.Gwinnett.COM> 
> >>> rc@depsych.Gwinnett.COM (Richard Carlson) writes:
> > 
> > CM:
> >>> I nominate Richard Carlson for the 1992 Chinese Toilet Award. This is
> >>> awarded to the poster on the topic of the Chinese Room who posts the
> >>> most words on the topic without having read any Searle. Obviously we'll
> >>> need to wait out the rest of 1992, but RC is clearly a very powerful
> >>> contender who is going to be very hard to beat.
> >>> -- 
> >>> Chris Malcolm    cam@uk.ac.ed.aifh          +44 (0)31 650 3085
> >>> Department of Artificial Intelligence,    Edinburgh University
> >>> 5 Forrest Hill, Edinburgh, EH1 2QL, UK                DoD #205
> > 
> > DL:
> >>  Chris, he may not have read Searle, or even be a good debater, and
> >>yes, he makes some conclusions that seem to have no basis, but we do not
> >>need people cutting up on others here.  If your argument is that strong,
> >>argue it with a cool head.  If you see that someone has obviously jumped
> >>on teh band wagon too soon, then say so, but do not stoop to low level 
> >>name calling.  Thank you.
> >>    Drew Lehman
> >>    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu
> > 
> > On the contrary, "we" (was that the royal `we', the editorial `we', or the
> > "me and my tapeworm" `we'? just wondering...) certainly need people cutting
> > up select, deserving others, if only for the sake of providing an adequate
> > incentive for the rest of the crowd to think before they clutter the net
> > with predictably ill-considered, discombobulated meanderings.  Thanks,
> > Chris, for the best laugh I've had this year.  As for you, Drew, pay
> > attention: you are setting yourself up as the next unwitting target.
> > 
> > 
> > `'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
> > : Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
> > : Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
> > : Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
> > :                                                             so     :
> > : Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
> > : 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
> > : Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
> > : email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
> > :                                                                    :
> > '`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`
>   Try as you wish..I was simply trying to keep this civil and stay away
> from childish name calling.. If I want that I will simply hang around with
> my little brothers friends (age 13)..
>    Drew Lehman
>    Lehman_ds@lrc.edu

And I appreciate it.  The experiences of Mike Dukakis and Bill
Clinton suggest that if you're accused of some absurd thing, or
even if someone just applies vague negative labels to you, it is
wiser to refute rather than ignore.  Also, if you're the new kid
in class and no one has any opinions about you, if some jerk
shouts, "Hey, dumbo!" or "Geek!  Geek!" you'd better do something
about it.  There's what we psychologists call a "primacy effect."
First impressions tend to last.

As to the substance of the charge -- posting a lot of material on
the Chinese Room without having read Searle, the fact is that I
didn't post much at all.  I read the material in the articles and
didn't post anything until I had some idea of what was going on.
(But if someone says, "Hey, this guy posted voluminous ramblings
about the Chinese Room," most people will remember you as having
posted voluminous ramblings whether you did or not. That's a fact
of human psychology.)

Then there's the general issue of the genre of philosophical texts
lurking in the background of this discussion. Ideally philosophy
is not thought of as textual or "literary" at all.  The "essence"
of the argument is presumably expressible in completely other
words (i.e., has full "translatability" and "synonymy"). Indeed if
the argument itself depends on a particular concatenation of
particular words, the suspicion is that it is a species of
rhetoric rather than philosophy.  (It was Nietzsche who first
pointed out that philosophical texts are indeed texts, with
metaphors and other figures of speech, and they use rhetorical
tricks and devices to convince and slide over weaknesses in their
arguments.  But, while I think there is a lot to his point, I
think he overstates it.  For example I think Nietzsche's own
theories could be more clearly expressed in the plainstyle than in
his own flowery, literary style.)  I think the logical skeleton of
Searle's thought was clear enough by the time I said anything at
all.  In fact if someone argues that it should be necessary to
read the original (rather than a summary in a secondary source)
sh/e should ask h/erself just what that says about the underlying
logical and conceptual skeleton under the rhetorical flesh of the
author's "own" words.

--
Richard Carlson        |    rc@depsych.gwinnett.COM
Midtown Medical Center |    {rutgers,ogicse,gatech}!emory!gwinnett!depsych!rc
Atlanta, Georgia       |
(404) 881-6877         |


