So, for example, I don't think this domain is nearly so limited as you think it is. Ethical discourse seems to me to be about deciding how to describe...
Humeaniam and abstration. :wink: Does that buy me a brief whinge about speech act theory? Hooray, so would mine. But, boo, if "just" means "merely" af...
And they did. The price of the neural network revolution was giving up (or at least severely compromising) the model of the brain (or computer) as a p...
Russell says it can be true that John believes a false proposition, a proposition expressed by the sentence "the present Queen of America is bald". Fr...
Haha, sarcasm, then? Fine, although I do think that the "neural representations" favoured by the likes of Dennett and Frankish (thanks for the links) ...
Or did you mean the other way round: what, if anything, distinguishes concepts from mere words? Depends who you ask, of course. Word du jour is "illus...
Oh dear. Did I suggest that? I'll read what I wrote and see if I'm to blame... But your response was awfully quick. Not saying I expected you to medit...
I hear this a lot. But I wonder how, and even whether, it is meant to deflate qualia talk and Cartesian theatre talk. A visual interface is pictures w...
Vote!... Do you think that consciousness (in any important sense) goes (in any degree) right down to the level of bacteria and virus? Grateful for any...
And I was urging against that kind of response to the OP. As it happens, though, doing ontology, in the straightforward sense of inferring domains of ...
Woo. True, but it's arguable there is a very wide zone of uncertainty separating perfectly clear cases of consciousness from equally clear counter-cas...
In their what, now?? Fewer, surely? Good question. I find that admission of such a possibility usually indicates zero prospect of any interesting disc...
Well, if Bob's apologists are now claiming, after all, that he is not to be trusted even with coherent reference to utterances, then no, I think you a...
You neglected to misspell. Lose 5 points. I do recall once referring to him as Charles Stuart Peirce, actually. But then, I am in touch with my inner ...
So Bob claims permission (by this principle) to mis-quote, as well as to mis-disquote? Is that the case? If so, does he carry out the threat? Does he ...
More importantly she needs to show him that she won't be fooled into admitting some continuity, between his standard and meaningful contributions to t...
Was Alice being misquoted, or merely mis-disquoted (misread, misinterpreted, misunderstood)? The latter, so I don't think she needed to admit, in an o...
No doubt. At all. "Discover" seemed weird though... In that case, why not "understand"? Perhaps because he associates that with "prove"? Ok, but then ...
So what? Aren't they ready to gloss it (if pressed, and with cheerful inconsistency as you say) as: their red and/or your red and/or the type of stimu...
And as such they are ever subject to clarification and revision in terms of genotype and phenotype and the implied correlation. You could try simply i...
Isn't that exactly how you use it when you speculate (with or without committing) as to the relative merits of competing (and perhaps currently unfals...
It doesn't offer a model of understanding, though. It uses a clear case of non-understanding (you processing symbols in a language you don't understan...
Oh, so right there. Searle doesn't say that symbol manipulation can not possibly give rise to consciousness. Only that it needs to at least produce me...
Whatever flaws you might ever turn up, the point is Searle caught cognitive scientists confusing semantics with syntax. Signal-meaning pairs, as you p...
Or worse still, semantics! :wink: You propose that if we let the beast semantics on our land at all, we shackle it with the T-schema? Allow, if we mus...
Comments