Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,alt.consciousness,comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.meta,rec.arts.books
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!casaba.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!news.mathworks.com!udel!gatech!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Penrose and Searle (was Re: Roger Penrose's fixed ideas)
Message-ID: <jqbD0Dtr6.J0E@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <JMC.94Nov22011226@white.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il> <D00uxJ.8o2@cwi.nl> <jqbD02yo1.35B@netcom.com> <786566258snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>
Date: Tue, 6 Dec 1994 09:16:18 GMT
Lines: 51
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.skeptic:97278 comp.ai.philosophy:23234 sci.philosophy.meta:15339

In article <786566258snz@michaels.demon.co.uk>,
Rodney York <books@michaels.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>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.

The point is that Searle does offer a "proof" of this, namely that if we can
make such a system then we can make it out of cheese, and that is clearly
ridiculous (or an "uncomfortable result"), and therefore, ad reductio,
we can't make such a system.

>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).

Well, I considered the "strong" argument to be obvious from the argument given,
and obviously fallacious.  I am more concerned with problems for the AI
community when arguments as shoddy as Searle's are widely taken as valid,
and when someone who presents such shoddy arguments is taken so seriously.
After all, Von Daniken and Creationists are not taken seriously by the
scientific community except as sociological threats.
-- 
<J Q B>
