3 ms·
I'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 o
by mannykannot 1y ago
I'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.
- measurablefunc 1y agoLikewise.
- mannykannot 1y agoFor example, this response fails to give any justification for your claim that I am not addressing the actual argument.
- measurablefunc 1y agoAlready covered further up the thread.
- mannykannot 1y agoThen you will have no difficulty in pointing out where that happens. While you are about it, you can point out where you think I said people can read & interpret numbers by imbuing them w/ actual meaning & semantics.
- measurablefunc 1y agoIt's in your response. You're welcome to elaborate your argument about Enigma ciphers in other terms if you want but you'll reach the same conclusion as I did.
- mannykannot 1y agoSo, nothing to see here so far - I can't really respond to allegations that are imaginary. You also claim that I am begging the question. How do you justify that? It is not, of course, begging the question for opponents of Searle to suppose his conclusion is wrong: everyone disputing any argument does that. The Enigma response is very straightforward. While, in general, simulations are not equivalent to what is being simulated, it is often the case that for information manipulation they are, owing to the substrate independence of information. It is Searle who needs a better argument here, and he never came up with one.