Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!miner.usbm.gov!rsg1.er.usgs.gov!jobone!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!gatech!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: <jqbD0IBAM.90q@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <jqbD02yo1.35B@netcom.com> <jqbD0Dtr6.J0E@netcom.com> <1994Dec6.195116.3951@news.media.mit.edu> <786819712snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 8 Dec 1994 19:25:34 GMT
Lines: 48
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97480 comp.ai.philosophy:23400 sci.philosophy.meta:15415

In article <786819712snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>,
Rodney York <books@michaels.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>I'll try to avoid quoting & keep this short. I think a recent posting of
>mine was misunderstood (my responsibility; not clear enough).
>
>Jim Balter criticises an argument of Searle's by shooting at his subjective
>comments and silly examples. I suggested that Searle's argument should be
>stood on its feet, tidied up as best as possible, and then attacked.
>
>Jim Balter responded that he considered the "strong" argument to be obvious
>from the argument given, and obviously fallacious.
>
>But then the strong argument should have been attacked explicitly, not the
>window-dressing!

"should" is normative.  I already told you where my interests lie.  Don't tell
me what I "should" do.  If you want to attack some argument, go ahead.

>To be pedantic, Searle's argument is clearly NOT _FALLACIOUS_
>as his reasoning is not incorrect. It can be said to be _FALSE_ (and I
>personally believe it to be false), as it depends (implicitly) upon a premise
>which is not a proven fact.

As I already pointed out, Searle's argument is "If Brains are digital computers,
then we can make brains of cheese; the latter is an uncomfortable result,
*therefore brains aren't digital computers*".  The last phrase is not
explicitly stated, at least not in the quoted material, but it certainly seems
to be his thrust, otherwise there is no argument at all.  This argument is
*fallacious*; "P -> Q; uncomfortable(Q); therefore ~P" is not an accepted 
inference rule, at least not in the logic I use.

>Let me be clear, as there seems to be a move to classify humanity into
>Searle-supporters and Searle-opponents (plus those who don't care): I am not
>in the Searle camp.
>
>My comments about a single paragraph are probably regarded as unbelievably
>pedantic (I'd tend to along with that, frankly). But I think that this sort of
>discusion should be carried out with maximum rigour and minimal rhetoric --
>the ideas are complex enough already!

I think you should stop trying to fit every debate into the particular
perimeters you favor.  Many different things get debated.  It is foolish
to demand "don't make your point; make my point instead".  If *you* want to
attack Searle's argument on a certain level, go ahead.  Enter the fray directly.


-- 
<J Q B>
