Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
From: books@michaels.demon.co.uk (Rodney York)
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!demon!michaels.demon.co.uk!books
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
References: <JMC.94Nov22011226@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <CzuCBz.80z@cwi.nl> <Czzp8B.C2t@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <D00uxJ.8o2@cwi.nl> <jqbD02yo1.35B@netcom.com>
Organization: The Online Bookshop
Reply-To: books@michaels.demon.co.uk
X-Newsreader: Demon Internet Simple News v1.29
Lines: 40
Date: Sun, 4 Dec 1994 18:37:38 +0000
Message-ID: <786566258snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>
Sender: usenet@demon.co.uk
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97152 comp.ai.philosophy:23153 sci.philosophy.meta:15304

Jim Balter attacks Searle's:

    "But now if we are trying to take seriously the idea that the
    "brain is a digital computer, we get the uncomfortable result
    "that we could make a system that does just what the brain does
    "out of pretty much anything.  [Including] cats and  mice and
    "cheese or levers or water pipes or pigeons ...

by criticising "uncomfortable result" and discussing the impracticability
of building computers out of cheese.

I don't myself have a firm opinion (not enough facts yet), but Jim is taking
advantage of Searle's badly-expressed argument to rubbish the ideas behind it.
Instead of worrying about seriousness and comfort and mice, the meat of
Searle's statement should be considered, and the fat and window-dressing,
unpalatable as I agree that they are, ignored:

    "if the brain is a digital computer, we could make a system that
    "does just what the brain does

This argument only leads to the conclusion Searle wants (the brain is NOT a
digital computer) if we add the implied argument (am I wrong to add this?):

    "as we can't make a system that does just what the brain does, nor will
    "we ever be able to, then the brain can't be a digital computer

Whether or not Searle's CONCLUSION is right, or wrong, or irrelevant, this
ARGUMENT doesn't hold water; to make it valid we would have to add a PROOF
that we can never make a system that does just what the brain does.

I suggest that when discussing opposing viewpoints with the intention of
discovering the truth (rather than of winning a political debate), instead of
seeking and attacking weaknesses in the other's argument, one should
strengthen it as much as possible and then attack the strong argument (I
learnt this from Sir Karl Popper).

Best wishes,
--
Rodney York
The Online Bookshop
