Searle: Philosophy of Mind, lecture 8

[@WisdomisPower-10inminute-dn5no]

I'm drawn to these discussions and have been exploring them in my latest videos. It's wonderful to connect with others who are equally passionate.

[@boldfoxes]

Searle you're the man!

[@MnemoHistory]

- Stomach-digestion reductio 5:55 “We don’t have a stomach-digestion problem” - “One sentence refutation of computer functionalism”…”syntax is not sufficient for the semantics”…”simulation is not duplication” 18:30

[@davidfost5777]

I'm always looking for new interesting lectures on Psychology/Philosophy, please let me know if you guys have any recommendations, would be highly appreciated

[@tweaker1bms]

Is there a possible way to get what the reading list was for this course?

[@TellTheTruth_and_ShameTheDevil]

tweaker1bms The reading list can be found at webpages.uidaho.edu/~morourke/442-phil/Fall2008/Syllabus442-542F2008.htm

[@locke78]

Maybe (probably) I'm misunderstanding, but doesn't his criticism of weak AI as ambiguous language seem like a straw man argument? I would guess than any serious theory of weak AI would define computation more tightly than he did in class. Further, I think it's well understood that in this case computationally means a network of observable and understandable causal relationships in the brain that we could recreate using computational and mechanical processes.

[@MrKrisvandegoor]

Searle addresses weak AI as an observer dependent proces and as such it is not a purely physical or natural thing. Of course as a model, the computational paradigm has his virtues and it could even function as a tight analogue to a working brain. But the advancements made are just not strong enough and the amount of disanalogies are vast! A straw man is made when the subject doesn't really matter to the speaker and this isn't really the case here.

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

Suppose john is a social psychologist and he's studying the group g and he's trying to find out the game the individuals in g are playing,now suppose john died,does the group with its game go away? No. Also,it seems that there's a difference between chalk being motionless as matter of a program gouverning rule and chalk just being motionless,you can interpret the latter as if it's like the former,but interpreting p as j doesn't imply the truth of p being j,so it doesn't seem to me that computation is matter of interpretation.

[@timtopsnav]

On the first, the game is ontologically subjective. A physical description of the events comprising the game would not hint at any such game. On the second, he grants that computers aren't arbitrary things, as they're designed for a purpose. But the observer independent aspect of the system is not computation, but voltage changes (or what have you).

[@ahmedbellankas2549]

@@timtopsnav So, A- if I design a program that computes the income tax then the computations according to which the income tax are subjective. A is extremely implausible, for there are according to which the income tax IS counted and they're independant of people's opinions once the rules are decided.

[@timtopsnav]

@@ahmedbellankas2549 I'm not quite following. If I add 2 and 2 I get four, and so would a calculator. However, you don't need me to assure you that the calculator gave you the right answer. Same would go for the tax calculator. Both it and I (if I knew what I was doing) would give the same figures, but you don't need me to tell you it gave the right figures.