Michael

And I'm saying that we could change the way we use the word "horse" such that it then means "rabbit".

Okay, consider the following. "Horse" means "rabbit." Rabbits were already rabbits before the word "horse" was invented. It follows therefore that the...

Did the meaning of "gay" remain the same when we changed the way we used it?

Exactly the way it worked. When we used the word "gay" to talk about the happy and carefree, then to be gay was to be happy and carefree. Now we use t...

I think you're just trolling now. Your responses are ridiculous. I'm repeating your own logic.

I think it needs to be stated the other way round; "horsexual" means "gay". So what's the problem?

That depends on if we're using the word "gay" to refer to rabbits or if we're predicating homosexuality of horses. It's not clear what you're trying t...

But I do mean gay, because "gay" now means "homosexual", and I mean "homosexual".

And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits are, and were already, horses. This is like saying that if you change th...

Yes, and "horse" means "rabbit". Just as now I call a homosexual "gay", and I still mean gay -- because "gay" means "homosexual".

This is like saying that at T2 to be the referent of "gay" is to be homosexual but to be gay is still to be happy and carefree, not homosexual.

You're using a straw man interpretation. I'm not saying that if I call a rabbit a "horse" then it becomes the sort of animal that competes in the Gran...

You have a fundamental misunderstanding that even the simplest explanation can't seem to correct. Yes, and at T2 to be a horse is to be a member of th...

I don't know how much simpler to put this. If at T1 "A" refers to Xs and if at T2 "A" refers to ¬Xs then at T2 ¬Xs are As. If at T1 "horse" refers to ...

I'm not saying that they became homosexual when we started calling them gay. I'm saying that they became members of the set "gay" when we changed the ...

Consider that we used the word "gay" to refer to the light-hearted and carefree, and that now we use it to refer to homosexuals. Now imagine that such...

That's not how it works. We have two sets of properties; {A, B, C} and {X,Y, Z}. At T1 we say that those things that have the properties in the first ...

This is like saying that even if I change my name to Andrew then I would go on being Michael. But this is wrong. I'm Michael because I'm called Michae...

In this post you said "we understand that people are doing something more than manipulating symbols" and "if a machine says it ... what we don't do is...

Marchesk, stop avoiding. You said that your claim that humans can understand but that computers can't isn't dogma. You said that you have evidence. Te...

Yes. What's wrong with what I've said?

And being sexual means what? Feeling sexual arousal? You're just begging the question. And needing to reproduce means what? Having the desire to repro...

And what evidence shows that only animals experience sexual arousal? They could. Or we could. After, all we're telling the computer the appropriate ou...

The linguistic community. Maybe. What evidence allows us to justify an answer either way?

How do you know what they can't?

If by "war" you mean "rebellion". Historical revisionism, I tell ya.

Then as I keep asking, what evidence shows that humans can genuinely feel emotions but that computers/robots can't? Clearly it can't be empirical evid...

But why are they qualities of horses rather than rabbits? Eventually you're going to have to concede that we use the word "horse" to talk about this t...

And then I'd ask you why this size, this shape of legs, and having a mane makes a thing a horse rather than a rabbit?

And if I were to then ask you why that one is the horse and not the other?

Then why did you ask me what grief is? Presumably you wanted an answer, but don't want me to kill your family. So given two animals, which one do I po...

Can you? Explain grief to me. Explain understanding to me. It's the only answer I can give. My answers can only ever be in English. You either underst...

Yes, and as I said, I assume you know the answer to the question "what is grief?". If you don't then nothing I can say can help you understand, so it'...

And there are lots of things that are not named "grief", so in saying that grief is that thing we call "grief" I've ruled them out. But as I've said b...

Yes, it's uninformative. But how can I provide an informative account? Your response "grief is a feeling" is also uninformative because plenty of feel...

I'm not saying that "grief" means "thing I call 'grief'". I'm saying that grief is the thing I call 'grief'. "Ian" doesn't mean "my father" but Ian is...

And how can I point to a horse during an online discussion? All I can do is tell you something. So what sort of thing can I tell you? I could perhaps ...

I can't list the conditions that must be satisfied to make something a horse (if we use your example above then consider that not all horses have mane...

I'm not saying "X is a horse iff I name it 'horse'".

I'm not saying that if we stop calling this animal "horse" then it disappears. I don't know how you've managed to derive that from what I've said. The...

Which part?

I've already told you. Consider, you might ask me what a horse is. I'd say it's the thing I'd name "horse". You then ask me if I'm saying that the Fre...

No. I didn't say that "I am grieving" is the only appropriate response. So it is just dogma? I didn't say that. I'm asking what evidence shows that co...

It means that if when presented with something I consider "I am grieving" to be the appropriate response then that thing is grief. And feelings are? A...

I think it's a serious hypothesis. When I consider my own understanding of "it is raining" all I can consider is the input and the subsequent output. ...

Then what does it mean to understand "it is raining", and what evidence shows that humans can and computers can't?

And I want to know what evidence shows that people can experience grief but that computers can't.

As I've said before, this doesn't work because the computer is put under different conditions to the person (a person under the same conditions also w...

Which means what? And what evidence shows that humans can provide meanings to the symbols but computers can't? Again, you're just dogmatically asserti...

The correct question is "what's the difference between a computer taking in, manipulating, and outputting symbols and a human taking in, manipulating,...