Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!math.ohio-state.edu!magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu!csn!csus.edu!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <jqbD0ICCL.AuM@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <jqbD02xHw.27H@netcom.com> <D0Cvq3.1F2@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:48:20 GMT
Lines: 44
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97486 comp.ai.philosophy:23404 sci.philosophy.meta:15417

In article <D0Cvq3.1F2@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>,
Jeff Dalton <jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>I thought they might well notice.  I certainly expected Oz to.
>I expected him to add this to the "TT is defended" pile and
>not to the "fierce~ subpile.

I doubt that Oz is so silly is to maintain a "pile" related to so pathetic,
pointless, and ill-formed a question as whether "the TT" is "defended".

>The CR has suggested certain things to some people.  In particular,
>it's suggested that something might pass the TT without actually
>understanding what it's saying.

Given a sufficiently poorly formed notion of "understand", what need is there
of the CR to plant such a suggestion?  People already suspect this.
The CR, as a fallacious argument, is poor support for the position.

>Perhaps you do.  I often decide a person is conscious just by
>seeing them walking down the street.

Based upon what, other than that they are human?  Perhaps behavior that seems
inconsistent with a non-conscious being?  If so, how does the TT differ?

>I also decide some animals
>are conscious.

Based upon what?  Perhaps behavior that seems
inconsistent with a non-conscious being?  If so, how does the TT differ?

>It may be that some net exchanges I've been in
>amount to a TT, but I've hardly ever been able to check whether
>my conclusions about these net entities are correct or not.

And how would you check that?  By seeing them walk down the street?

>>It's pretty danged reliable. 
>
>But at present only humans pass it.  That's a rather narrow range
>of examples to go on.

I find this hopelessly conceptually confused.  But then you already know that.
We seem to be repeating ourselves a lot.  I think I'll give it a rest.
-- 
<J Q B>
