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!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!swrinde!pipex!uunet!rosevax!reddwarf!grante
From: grante@reddwarf.rosemount.com (Grant Edwards)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <1994Dec7.184602.7205@rosevax.rosemount.com>
Followup-To: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Sender: news@rosevax.rosemount.com (Rosevax USENET News auto-admin account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: reddwarf
Organization: Fisher-Rosemount, Rosemount Inc.
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
References: <Czzrvs.A1u@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <D01FA6.DuK@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <1994Nov30.165636.20074@rosevax.rosemount.com> <D0EFJJ.Av@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 7 Dec 1994 18:46:02 GMT
Lines: 42
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97403 comp.ai.philosophy:23326 sci.philosophy.meta:15383

Jeff Dalton (jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk) wrote:

: >Are you claiming that the two are different but indistinguishable?
: >How about the claim that two protons are different regardless of the
: >fact that there is no way to tell one from the other?

: Do you think all such cases must be decided the same way?  Probably
: you do.  In any case, it's fairly common to think "a difference that
: makes no difference is no difference".  But can there not be
: differences you cannot detect?

Certainly there can be, but why should we posit one for no reason?

: Can you tell what I'm thinking right now?  Probably not.  But does
: that mean I wasn't thinking anything?

You'll have to define "thinking" in a way that's testable.  I have no
evidence other than you're postings for the process you call
"thought."  I can assume that if you so claim you have subjective
experiences similar to mine.  Why should I believe a claim like that
from you but not a computer?

: >Let's assume that I "understand" a conversation when I have one.  Can
: >I claim that I understand, that I am conscious, but you are not?

: Well, you can *claim* it.

: >Remember you can't use the justification that a third person can
: >converse with both of us, and can't tell which one of us "understands"
: >and which one doesn't.  If you want to show that "you understand" you
: >need more.

: Why should I have to do anything of the kind?

How else are you going to define "understanding" other than through
your behavior?

--
Grant Edwards                                 |Yow!  Hey, wait a minute!!  I
Rosemount Inc.                                |want a divorce!!..  you're
                                              |not Clint Eastwood!!
grante@rosemount.com                          |
