3 ms·
This seems to be correct - it appears to be the "a model is not that which it models" argument, which is Searle's only response to the Simulation Reply to his C
by mannykannot 4y ago
This seems to be correct - it appears to be the "a model is not that which it models" argument, which is Searle's only response to the Simulation Reply to his Chinese Room - but a model of a thing can have properties of that thing (a model boat can float, create a wake etc.), and an informational process can be modeled by another. Are minds informational processes instantiated by brains? It is plausible, and the model argument does not rule it out.
- sirsinsalot 4y agoIf it was the ops intent, they mangled it to the point I'm not even sure.
- tacitusarc 4y agoInterestingly, a model of a boat is, in itself, a small boat.
- mannykannot 4y agoTo be clear, that doesn't refute the point I am making. For anyone who suspects it might (I'm not sure how...) consider this: a model of the Titanic (or a replica, for that matter) is not the Titanic. A model of your brain would neither be your brain nor necessarily a brain at all, but whether it could think is a different question.
- tacitusarc 4y agoI was only observing that while the model of a thing is not always that thing, sometimes it is.