Poll about realism

[PixyMisa]

You cannot determine (empirically) the objective existence of a physical Universe.

So why do you make such a claim for the BIV's universe?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

So, what you are asking is "Ignoring everything that we actually know....

 

[PixyMisa]

http://www.philosophers.co.uk/wpt.htm

When Searle turned his attention to philosophy of mind, he came up with perhaps the most famous counterexample in history - the chinese room argument - and in one intellectual punch inflicted so much damage on the then dominant theory of functionalism that many would argue it has never recovered.

The Chinese Room argument? The Chinese Room argument?!

You're kidding, right? You're not saying you take the Chinese Room argument seriously?

 

[PixyMisa]

:yawn:

Yes, I know. Darn pesky facts getting in the way of your metaphysics.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

If you're not interested in metaphysics then why do you even bother taking part in the debate?

Your contributions are just a waste of time, PM. A bit like scribble's posts. You don't actually have anything interesting to say so you

a) act superior
b) preach scientism
c) pretend you understand the argument when you don't
d) pretend the answer is simple when it isn't
e) make general swipes at philosophy
f) make contentless claims like:

"The Chinese Room argument? The Chinese Room argument?!

You're kidding, right? You're not saying you take the Chinese Room argument seriously?"

That was a direct quote from a bestselling book about recent philosophy and your response to it belongs in a playground, not a forum for intelligent adults. That particular quote came from the editor of the biggest selling philosophy journal in the UK. Do you really think there is any point in making the above post? What did you expect it to acheive? Am I just expected to take the word of a person who simultaneously disimisses philosophy as pointless and claims to understand it over the considered opinion of actual philosophers, my tutors and other people with whom I study? You know...the ones that actually have a clue what they are talking about rather than just having a big mouth and a bad attitude?

Go away and scribble on someone-else's thread unless you actually have anything to say that is worth listening to.

 

[PixyMisa]

If you're not interested in metaphysics then why do you even bother taking part in the debate?

Because I am pointing out that most metaphysical viewpoints lead to contradiction when they collide with the real world.

Your contributions are just a waste of time, PM. A bit like scribble's posts. You don't actually have anything interesting to say so you

a) act superior

No.

b) preach scientism

Definitively no.

c) pretend you understand the argument when you don't

This from someone who can't define "direct" or even see the need for such a definition.

d) pretend the answer is simple when it isn't

No.

e) make general swipes at philosophy

No. I make specific swipes at philosophy.

f) make contentless claims like:

"The Chinese Room argument? The Chinese Room argument?!

You're kidding, right? You're not saying you take the Chinese Room argument seriously?"

I'll grant you I said that.

That was a direct quote from a bestselling book about recent philosophy. That particular quote came from the editor of the biggest selling philosophy journal in the UK.

So?

Do you really think there is any point in making the above post?

Yes.

What did you expect it to acheive?

Well, I wanted to express that (a) I do not take the Chinese Room argument seriously, (b) no-one I consider insightful on the subject (e.g. Dennett and Hofstadter) takes the Chinese Room argument seriously, (c) that indeed they, and I, consider the Chinese Room argument to be fatally flawed from the beginning and that this was conclusively demonstrated very shortly after the argument first appeared, and (d) I wanted to find out if you took the Chinese Room argument seriously.

Am I just expected to the word of a person who simultaneously disimisses philosophy as pointless and claims to understand it over the considered opinion of actual philosophers, my tutors and other people with whom I study?

I don't dismiss philosophy. Just 97% of it.

But what are you supposed to be taking my word for? Address the content, and I'll be satisfied.

Go away and scribble on someone-else's thread unless you actually have anything to say that is worth listening to.

Shan't.

 

[UndercoverElephant]

I hope you don't mind, but I'm putting you on ignore. I just can't be bothered to read your posts anymore.

 

[PixyMisa]

I hope you don't mind, but I'm putting you on ignore. I just can't be bothered to read your posts anymore.

Welcome to the club.

 

[Z]

Don't feel bad Pixy - JG is obsessed with philosophy as if it were somehow superior to the real world. But I have to agree with you Pix - the real fore-runners of AI research laugh at the Chinese Room argument (as well as most everything JG seems to admire). That's why I specifically brought up Pylyshyn (sp?) - his works are more modern and recent and more relevant to actually working on A.I. than works by wanna-be thinkers admired by Sussex U.

JG - not a terribly mature way to act. The mature thing would be to address the points brought up by Pixy rather than putting your fingers in your ears.

Since I assume I'm not yet on ignore why don't you explain what it is you find so compelling about the Chinese Room argument and how you'd deal with the rebuttals against it?

 

[UndercoverElephant]

JG - not a terribly mature way to act. The mature thing would be to address the points brought up by Pixy

"The Chinese Room argument? The Chinese Room argument?!

You're kidding, right? You're not saying you take the Chinese Room argument seriously?"

Which point was that then?

 

[PixyMisa]

Which point was that then?

(a) through (d) inclusive, assuming you had read the literature.

Or you could simply say "Yes, I take the Chinese Room argument seriously. If you think you see a flaw it in, spell it out."

 

[UndercoverElephant]

Don't feel bad Pixy - JG is obsessed with philosophy as if it were somehow superior to the real world.

If you could take a step or two back you might realise that the truth is the reverse. It is not me who is totally discounting one area of academic knowledge (philosophy) and claiming that "everything we actually know" is based on science. So who is the one who is making claims of superiority? You really can't see the irony, can you? People like PM think they "fighting extremism". But he is every bit as extreme - and one-dimensional - as he people he thinks he is fighting. The post he made about the Chinese Room argument is a classic example. It was all bark and no bite. He doesn't actually understand either the chinese room argument or the debate about realism so what we were treated to instead was the scientistic equivalent of:

"Evolution? Evolution?? You don't actually believe in that silly evolution do you!? LOL! (snigger) "

Really effective, isn't it?

The fact the the author of such statements is entirely convinced he knows what he is talking about, swaggeringly confident whilst displaying no actual knowledge of the subject, fools only people who are just extreme themselves. The sad thing is that most of the people at this site aren't like this, but the ones who are take it upon themselves to trash peoples threads and cause flame wars, somewhat devaluing this site for everybody else. PM isn't interested in having a debate. He is interested in derailing threads and fanning the flames of his own ego.

Since I assume I'm not yet on ignore why don't you explain what it is you find so compelling about the Chinese Room argument and how you'd deal with the rebuttals against it?

Which rebuttals? I am not aware of any that are generally considered to work. As implied by the quote I originally posted, I do not believe there are any good rebuttals to the CRA.

I have an essay to write, and really can't be bothered to continue with this thread. Some of the people at this site seem to be in their own version of the dark ages. The era when large numbers of people believed in "strong AI" has ended. Wake up and smell the roses.

 

[Z]

OK then - you go on and stick your head back in the sand. When you eventually graduate from Sussex and join us in the real world you'll see what's really happening.

There was a point Gentle Reader back about five years ago when people thought like JG here - but luckily people came up with a little common sense and the practical side of the house (i.e. those actually working on AI rather than those pondering it) have managed quite well to show strong AI is still a definite possibility.

Some people are just behind the times.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

It seems to be nothing more than a question of exactly how indirect our experiences are. I can't get a grip on what it would mean to experience an external object absolutely directly. Assuming the "experiencer" is some part of my brain, what do I do, mush my brain onto the rock for some really direct experience of it? All my experiences are indirect. Exactly how much depends on neurophysiology.

Now possibly these philosophers use indirect to mean that some other entity experiences the rock directly, then I get to experience it indirectly by interacting with the other entity. Sounds like some bizarre dualistic notion.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

If you're not interested in metaphysics then why do you even bother taking part in the debate?

Come on Geoff, you know that philosophers of mind are notorious for wasting centuries discussing topics in a vacuum. They wouldn't want any actual neurophysiology to get in the way of a centuries-old idea. Or even a relatively new idea. Witness the absurdity of the Knowledge Argument.

Time to borrow some wastebaskets from the math department, guys.

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

Oh, by the way, what happens when you die? Where does all this direct realism go? Could it be that it wasn't all that direct after all?

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

What does it mean for a philosophical concept to go somewhere?

~~ Paul

 

[Iacchus]

I believe that thought is real. In which case we to have to ask, where does thought go when we die?

 

[Genesius]

I believe that thought is real.

Just because you believe something doesn't make it so.

In which case we to have to ask, where does thought go when we die?

With no metabolic activity to generate the energy needed to maintain thought, it quickly dissipates into nothingness.

 

[Iacchus]

The only thing that makes the experience real for us is the fact that we think.