Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?

On Sep 26, 2:07 am, tvashtar <tvash...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 26, 5:38 am, forbisga...@xxxxxxx wrote:

Is consciousness or awareness third person observable? I don't
think so. What we observe is behavior and from behavior we
make claims about consciousness but this adds nothing to any
explaination of behavior since all that can be observed can
be equally explained without appeal to conscioiusness.

Of course we are bound by the problem of arguing the replication of
something we don't know exists, but then I think even at that level -
the question of existence - the argument splits its audience. I would
imagine those who buy Searle's argument would agree that consciousness
does exist as a thing in itself, those who disagree with Searle would
say consciousness is only the name we apply to a particularly flexible
mode of interaction with the world.

That you argue the point makes Searle's point and answers your
original question. You asked, "I'm wondering if people out there
can shed some light on whether or not Searle considers consciousness
to be a non-scientific process?" Curt attacked the question not in
his original response but in my quote of it and his attack was
as if I posed the question.

The fact is Searle makes his
judgement in the third person, he observes the Chinese speaker, and he
observes the room, and concludes they are different.

I'm pretty sure the Chinese speaker and the room are different.
The Chinese speaker is the person outside the room exchanging
pieces of paper with the person inside the room. The person
inside the room doesn't speak Chinese. I think you mean to
write something about the processes going on inside the room and
the processes going on inside the Chinese speaker. While I
can respond to what I think you meant to write doing so isn't
really responsive to what you wrote.

Surely if it
walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is a duck?

It is? So if I walk and quack like a duck I am a duck?
Again, I'm pretty sure you will say no human actually walks
like a duck or quacks like a duck but what do I know.

I realise
this is a heavily functionalist argument, I just fail to see how
Searle's argument is any less ridiculous than that of intelligent
design proponents, hiding behind science in order to disprove it.

One has to distinguish between doing philosophy and doing science.
When one is discussing what science can talk about one is doing
philosophy. When one makes a scientific claim one is doing science.

Do you wish to discuss the philosophy of science or do you wish
th carry on a scientific discussion?

.