From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff Mon May 25 14:04:53 EDT 1992
Article 5595 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
>From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Systems Reply I (repost perhaps)
Keywords: AI Searle Dickhead Barf
Message-ID: <6701@skye.ed.ac.uk>
Date: 12 May 92 20:11:32 GMT
References: <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk
Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Lines: 109

In article <1992May10.165225.25257@ccu.umanitoba.ca> zirdum@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Antun Zirdum) writes:
>In article <6686@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes:
>>In article <1992May5.191454.25793@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> pindor@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
>>>evidence that computers do this without thought? Argument "everyone
>>>knows that computers do not have thougths' is not acceptable.
>>
>>An example: evaluating f(7) where f(x) = 1 if x=0 and x*f(x-1) otherwise.
>>
>Simply stating so does not make it so!

Of course not!  Who ever thought otherwise?

>I think that if you watch a brain as it evaluates the
>same function, you will see it doing something, but
>in no case will you see anything resembling thought!

So?  

Again, you really ought to read the first Reith Lecture.  Searle
makes the same point!  Now how can that be ...?

>>Briefly, none of Searle's arguments have the form
>>
>>  1. Understanding requires causal powers P.
>>  2. Computers don't have P.
>>  3. Therefore computers don't understand.
>>
>>They're much more like:
>>
>>  Main argument :
>Let me fill in this part for you.
>	If we look inside a computer you will not see
>anything resembling understanding, therefore computers
>don't understand! (we will conveniently ignore the
>same argument also applies to the brain!)

If you're so sure Searle says that, you should be able to give me a
reference.  As you pointed out above, simply stating so does not make
it so!

>>     Therefore computers+programs don't cause minds.
>>
>>  Causal powers:
>>
>>    1. Computers+programs don't cause minds.
>>    3. Brains do.
>>    4. Therefore brains must have some causal powers
>>       computers+programs do not.
>>
>Along the same vein;
>	1. Physical matter+organization don't cause minds.
>	2. Brains do.
>	3. Therefore brains must include something that
>		is not physical or organizational.
>
>You will note that this is the exact same argument, but
>now it looks real silly, why? I will tell you why,
>the first premise is just nonsense!

You are wrong about the nature of arguments, and you have
misunderstood my point.

The premise (1) is the _conclusion_ of another argument.
(More or less the same argument that concludes computers
don't understand just by running the right program.)

And it is true or false, rather than "nonsense".

Your version of the argument "looks real silly" not because
the the argument is not a valid one (ie, premises imply conclusions)
but because the conclusion looks false and so does the first
premise.  And valid arguments (where validity is a matter of their
form) can of course go from false premises to false conclusions.

So the form of the argument is ok, and in my version we have
a premise (1) that had been produced by another argument.
If (1) is false, there must be a flaw in that other argument.
If there is no flaw in that other argument, where a flaw can
be either invalid reasoning or a false premise, then (1) is
true.  And if (1) is true, so is (4).

[Why I misnumbered them is not clear.]

But note -- and this is the main point -- the "causal powers"
occur only here: they are not part of showing that (1) is
true.

In short, Searle is NOT arguing thus:

  1. Understanding requires causal powers P.
  2. Computers don't have P.
  3. Therefore computers don't understand.

>>Note that if you reject this 2nd argument, the main argument
>>(which does not involve "causal powers") is untouched.
>>
>I do not agree with any of these arguments!

>>If you don't agree with this, read Searle and see for yourself.

>I have read Searle, trying to understand something that
>I may have missed. There is nothing in his argument that
>I missed. Therefore Searle is not a good philosopher!

The "this" I was talking about concerned Searle's use of
"causal powers".  He uses "causal powers" in the way I
indicated and not in the way you seemed to think.

-- jd


