Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!cornellcs!travelers.mail.cornell.edu!news.tc.cornell.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!cs.utexas.edu!utnut!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Chinese Room debunked
Message-ID: <DAn6q3.HCu@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <3s9vdq$bru@news.tamu.edu> <3sd7e6$kpa@nntp5.u.washington.edu> <3sdarb$3pq@news.tamu.edu> <3seo4h$5j0@nntp5.u.washington.edu>
Date: Fri, 23 Jun 1995 20:10:50 GMT
Lines: 43

In article <3seo4h$5j0@nntp5.u.washington.edu>,
Gary Forbis  <forbis@cac.washington.edu> wrote:
........
>
>While the relationships among objects are important, so are the objects 
>themselves.  Why propose that our phenomenal existence emerges solely from the
>relationship among objects and not on the objects?  And if we propose this

And why not? As argued by myself in another place and by other people, reasons
you have put up against such a proposition do not seem convincing.

>why propose that what we sense are not also relationships as opposed to 
>objects?

You are right, why not? In fact (I am convinced) that this is what we sense
and this is why we cannot know what the nature is "really" like, only how we
relate to it. However, this is all that is necessary to function.
Now I fear that you are again going to grind me about "really", are you?

>That we can reasign the semantics of the formal system this way should be of
>no consequenses but what have we gained?  My percieved inconsistency is when
>it is proposed that experience does not depend upon the substance of the 
>experiencer but does depend upon the substance of the experienced.  And if this
>is not what is being proposed how is solipsism avoided?
>
>I've deleted the rest because I don't believe the ability to build devices
>whose behaviors map to the rules of chess demand I accept such devices have
>experiences in the way I have them.
>
"in the way I have them" is open to many interpreatations (maybe more than
"really" :-)). What is a criterion that some entity has experiences "the way 
you have them", or not quite? Are you sure I have the experiences "the way you
have them"?
 
>-- 
>--gary forbis@u.washington.edu

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
