From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu Mon Jan  6 10:30:03 EST 1992
Article 2441 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!think.com!yale.edu!jvnc.net!netnews.upenn.edu!libra.wistar.upenn.edu
>From: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Ignore Searle and be happier
Message-ID: <61172@netnews.upenn.edu>
Date: 30 Dec 91 15:10:28 GMT
References: <61068@netnews.upenn.edu> <1991Dec28.222433.17716@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Sender: news@netnews.upenn.edu
Reply-To: weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: The Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology
Lines: 47
Nntp-Posting-Host: libra.wistar.upenn.edu
In-reply-to: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)

Oh yuckity poo.  DISCLAIMER: Weemba has no idea of what Searle says about
so many things, he can't even begin to comprehend how other people have an
idea of what Searle says about so many things, that he far prefers to be
amused merely watching other people say Searle said such and such and thus
and thus and .... oh never mind.

In article <1991Dec28.222433.17716@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>, chalmers@bronze (David Chalmers) writes:
>In article <61068@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:

>>Such a refutation should be independent of the means of simulation, yet
>>you have been relying heavily on computability assumptions about neurons
>>to box Searle's ears with the paradox of the heap.

>Assumptions that Searle himself is happy enough to accept for the sake
>of his argument -- see e.g. his treatment of the "brain simulator reply".

No, Searle is not so happy about such.  He prefaces his counter with a
digression that there's something screwy with strong AI if it ever has
to resort to neuron-by-neuron simulation.  He then concludes that

	    The problem with the brain simulator is that it is
	    simulating the wrong things about the brain. As long
	    as it simulates only the formal structure of the neurone
	    firings at the synapses, it won't have simulated what
	    matters about the brain, namely its causal properties,
	    its ability to produce intentional states.

That is, Searle was willing to accept such computability assumptions for the
sake of refuting SOMEONE ELSE'S argument who made just such an assumption.
It was never part of his own.

Searle goes on in his reply to say that intentionality is based on "relevant
neurobiological causal properties", without giving a clue as to what these
relevant properties are based on.  Hormones?  Pumped phonon condensates?  The
Cartesian pineal gland?  Weemba prefers to be amused, instead of enlightened,
at this point of Searle's argument.

Anyway, you seem to have accepted my categorization of your argument as a
reformatting of the brain simulator reply as the paradox of the heap.  If
so, your argument accomplishes absolutely nothing--on general principles.
For Searle is not claiming to have solved the paradox of the heap, and you
are not allowed to demand that he does so as part of his argument.  It is a
known puzzler, that grain-by-grain eventually leads to a holistic heap, and
somehow we deal with this without screaming "contradiction! contradiction!"
Yet you'd have us do that with your neuron-by-neuron replacement.  No dice.
-- 
-Matthew P Wiener (weemba@libra.wistar.upenn.edu)


