[ExI] The symbol grounding problem in strong AI

John Clark jonkc at bellsouth.net
Tue Dec 22 15:23:42 UTC 2009


On Dec 20, 2009, at  Gordon Swobe wrote:

> The brain has understanding, yes, but Searle makes no claim about the dumbness or lack thereof of its components.  You added that to his argument.


I think Stathis was trying to be generous, but if Searle an individual neuron is the souse of our understanding then the man is an even bigger fool than I thought he was.  

> He starts with the self-evident axiom that brains have understanding

Why the plural? The only self-evident axiom is that one brain has understanding. 

> nobody has shown his formal argument false. If somebody has seen it proved false then point me to it.

Good God almighty! I've shown in devastating and unanswered detail that his formal argument is not just false but positively vapid in a post this very day, and yesterday too, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that. But I can't brag, I'm a latecomer to all this. Charles Darwin proved that ideas such as Searle's and yours were idiotic in 1859. 

 John K Clark 



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20091222/30dc0754/attachment.html>


More information about the extropy-chat mailing list