From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo Wed Feb  5 11:57:00 EST 1992
Article 3479 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3479 sci.philosophy.tech:2044
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!psych.toronto.edu!christo
>From: christo@psych.toronto.edu (Christopher Green)
Subject: Re: MUST Philosopy be a Waste of Time?
Message-ID: <1992Feb4.212941.6125@psych.toronto.edu>
Organization: Department of Psychology, University of Toronto
References: <1992Jan31.161250.12160@convex.com> <1992Feb01.030627.520@norton.com> <1992Feb03.053748.28400@convex.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 1992 21:29:41 GMT

>In article <1992Feb01.030627.520@norton.com> brian@norton.com (Brian Yoder) writes:
>
>>Excuse me, but why should anyone care about "possiblities" which you can't
>>demonstrate are possible?  

You a sorely equivocating on the meaning of "possible".  Possible, as used
by the philosopher has to do with *logical* possibility, not whether or not
something is likely to happen.

>>You are saying here that the purpose of
>>philosophy is to study things that never come up in reality (chinese
>>rooms, duplicator machines for people, time machines, etc.). 

Not to put too blunt a point on it, you completely misunderstand the purpose
of philosophy.  It is not to discuss the non-actual for its own sake, but
to consider the implications of various ideas in order to determine if
they are (or even might be) true.  For instance, we talk about Searle's
"Chinese room" not because we want to, or even think it likely that we
could, build one (aside: people who argue against the possibility of
a set of rules that would allow one to speak Chinese like a native
miss this point; if you think its impossible, then you're already
committed to Searle's conclusion), we study it becuase if he's right,
then it is false -- a priori (i.e., before even having to examine evidence) --
to believ that a computer can be considered to be a mind. THAT'S the
important point; not whether a "Chinese room" is a likely eventuality.

>> I have to
>>ask...why should someone with such a definition want to bother with
>>philosophy?  I certainly don't accept your idea of the purpose of
>>philosophy and therefore I see good reasons to study it.  You on the other
>>hand don't have any such excuse.
>
I have no idea what you're on about here. Unlike the (good) philosopher,
you seem to equivocate woefully on the words you use. What might "I don't
*accept* your idea of the purpose of philosophy" mean. That you don't accept
that (unspecified) definition of it? That you think that philosophy is
useless if that's its definition? What you, in particular, might learn from
philosophy is how to express you thoughts clearly and precisely.  There are
many, I suspect, who would count this as being part ofthe definition of
philosophy.


-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
---------------------


