Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- From: "John H." <bingblat@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 27 Sep 2007 20:51:16 +1000
"Wolf Kirchmeir" <ElLoboViejo@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:46fa5d00$0$15200$9a6e19ea@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
tvashtar wrote:
I'm wondering if people out there can shed some light on whether or
not Searle considers consciousness to be a non-scientific process?
Searle's argument is that since none of the components of the Chinese
Room can understand Chinese, that therefore the Chinese Room can't
understand Chinese. That's like arguing that since none of the
components of a car can transport a person from A to B, therefore the
car can't transport a person from A to B. This argument is a fallacy,
since it places the functions of the components at the same level as the
functions of the system.
The conscious clerk in the Chinese Room is irrelevant. The clerk is, as
described by Searle, simply a pattern-recognition machine, and could be
replaced by one without any change in the Chinese Room's operation.
Does this amount to saying that Searle believes consciousness to be
"unscientific"? If I knew what you meant, I could answer. Searle IMO
believes in the reality of the Soul.
Probably, reminds me of Karl Popper (World 3) and his co authoring of The
Self and its Brain, other author, Sir John Eccles, being a gifted
neurophysiologist and evangelical christian. Strange bedfellows? Perhaps
not. I still have this nagging doubt that cognition condemns materialism.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Next by Date: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Previous by thread: Re: Does Searle's "Chinese Room" argument imply that consciousness is non-scientific?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|
