5 ms·
Searle tries this approach against the 'simulation agument' in this paper (see page 423) and also elsewhere, saying "a simulation of a rainstorm will not get y
by mannykannot 1y ago
Searle tries this approach against the 'simulation agument' in this paper (see page 423) and also elsewhere, saying "a simulation of a rainstorm will not get you wet" (similarly, Kastrup says "a simulation of a kidney won't pee on my desk"), to which one can reply "yet a simulation of an Enigma machine really will encode and decode messages."
The thing is, minds interact with the outside world through information transmitted on the peripheral neural system, so the latter analogy is the relevant one here.
- oh_my_goodness 1y agoMostly. Probably.
- mannykannot 1y agoEnough to show that Searle's successors need a better argument.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- measurablefunc 1y agoYou're not addressing the actual argument & not bridging the explanatory gap between arithmetic simulation & reality. Saying people can read & interpret numbers by imbuing them w/ actual meaning & semantics is begging the question.
- mannykannot 1y agoI'm showing that Searle's argument against the simulation reply doesn't hold up against relatively straightforward scrutiny. If you think you know of a better one, present it.
- measurablefunc 1y agoYou're the one arguing against it by begging the question. Define all your terms & then maybe we'll have an actual argument.
- mannykannot 1y agoSo no argument or explanation from you, just unsubstantiated allegations and bluster.
- measurablefunc 1y agoYou can believe whatever you want about arithmetic as a foundation of your own metaphysics. I personally think it's silly but I'm not interested in arguing this any further b/c to close the explanatory gap from extensionality to intentionality you'd essentially have to solve several open problems in various branches of philosophy. Write out your argument in full form & then maybe you'll have something worth discussing.
- mannykannot 1y agoOnce you punted a second time on an opportunity to explain yourself, I was fairly confident that there was nothing there. It's a common pattern.
- measurablefunc 1y agoRight back at ya.
- mannykannot 1y agoThe great thing about your latest reply is that it takes no time at all to see that you have still not offered any justification or explanation of anything you have claimed.