Newsgroups: sci.lang,sci.psychology,rec.arts.books,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!rochester!rutgers!utcsri!utgpu!pindor
From: pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor)
Subject: Re: Chomsky on Consciousness and Dennett
Message-ID: <D9K5AJ.JM4@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>
Organization: UTCC Public Access
References: <D94Fo0.9CL@cup.hp.com> <3qb1ju$71@ixnews4.ix.netcom.com> <D9GD39.2HI@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca> <3qimcb$1fa8@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 1995 18:13:30 GMT
Lines: 62
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu sci.lang:39719 sci.psychology:42448 comp.ai.philosophy:28540

In article <3qimcb$1fa8@locutus.rchland.ibm.com>,
Scott Inglett <singlett@atticus.rchland.ibm.com> wrote:
>In article <D9GD39.2HI@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca>, pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca (Andrzej Pindor) writes:
................
>|> Instead of looking at the problem as "inflating" the notion of humanhood (by
>|> giving away "human characteristics" to non-humans) why not to recognize that
>|> ascribing beliefs is a way of categorizing behavior and as long as such
>|> categorization is helpful in some way, why shy away from it?
>
>You can of course look at it this way.  But I'm not sure that the 
>word "belief" really means much without including other attributes that
>go with a brain, like awareness.   The same applies for the word

By making "belief" (or "understanding") conditional on "awareness" you are in
fact muddling the issue since the concept of "awareness" is even more vague
that the other two. At least in the case of beliefs or understanding we have
behavioral indicators whereas in the case of "awareness" we have nothing 
empirical to guide us, it is all pure faith. I have argued in my posting
that even in case of one's own beliefs it is behavior which is an ultimate test
of whether one holds a given belief or not. Since in another place you have
used "common sense" as a guide for your own views, please note such a common 
sense statement as "talk is cheap" as an indicator that a belief not supported 
by behavior is not to be taken seriously. 
I would also like to point out that, as evidenced by a discussion which took 
place in c.a.p. some time ago, many people consider "awareness" (I assume that
you mean it in the sense of "consciousness" and not "attention") as a matter
of attribution and not a matter of fact.

>"understanding".   Applying them without that extra context feels empty.
>Something crucial seems to be missing.   It might be interesting to 
>play with, just to see what might come out of it.  Interesting
>applications often seem to come out of such play.  But it's tempting 
>to lead people to believe (even oneself), that what you've produced 
>really does have beliefs, that your ascription of belief is no longer
>play, but appropriate use of the word.  That's what concerns me.   If 

It seems to me that you believe (sic!) that words have absolute meanings,
whereas I believe (!) that their meaning is determined by their use. Whatever
we might say (and "talk is cheap" :-)), effectively it is the behavior which
determines whether in our view someone, even ourselves, holds a given belief.
So this is what belief means in _use_. Consequently, we should have courage
to overcome the emotional barriers alluded above (like 'selling out humanhood')
and face the facts.

>you add the extra aforementioned context (real existing awareness) it 
>seems to me you have to take a moral stance and treat those 
                                ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>beliefs seriously.  If you don't add that context, you've just got 
>yourself a facsimilie.  You don't have to treat it as a moral being.
>You're just playing with the word belief to see what might come of it.
>
I am sorry but this is the last refuge of the desperate: if everything else
fails, pull out the world _moral_. Laws of nature have no attribute _moral_,
unless of course you believe in God. This is fine, but mixing science and
faith is an empty exercise, which results only in a lot of noise.

Andrzej
-- 
Andrzej Pindor                        The foolish reject what they see and 
University of Toronto                 not what they think; the wise reject
Instructional and Research Computing  what they think and not what they see.
pindor@gpu.utcc.utoronto.ca                           Huang Po
