Searle's Chinese Room for dogs.

Psychologic, the current argument in philosophy is precisely about whether or not an empiricist, scientific mode of investigating the mind can ever solve the "hard" problems of consciousness (as opposed to the soft problems--how cognition in the brain works, how the brain assimilates language, how brain chemistry affects emotions, etc.). It is at best naive to decide at the outset that only a scientific account will do before examining whether such an account can in principle actually provide an answer.

If it cannot--and there are strong arguments that it can't--then one must find some other way of talking about consciousness. The dualist positions of philosophers like Donald Davidson and David Chalmers are one attempt at this. So are the non-reductive physicalist ideas of John Searle or Thomas Nagel. In a similar vein, one could perhaps revive the panexperientialist philosophy of A. N. Whitehead, as some have begun to do.

Finding a non-scientific way of talking about consciousness is not mere "speculation" as opposed to evidence-based reasoning. Those make the attempt formulate the strongest arguments they can based on the best premises they believe they have. In doing so, they open themselves up to substantial objections and counter-arguments which may indeed entirely defeat their positions.

Oh man, you make a good argument here GSF, but some of your points are wonderfully put down by Daniel Dennett (my hero) in, hmm, I think it was Consciousness Explained. (I wrote an assignment on this a few years back, I'll just see if I can get the quotes and stuff..)

The Chinese Room thought experiment is essentially a dud. Dennett calls it an Intuition Pump.

“while philosophers and others have always found flaws in his thought experiment when it is considered as a logical argument, it is undeniable that its “conclusion” continues to seem “obvious” to many people. Why? Because people don’t actually imagine the case in the detail it requires.”

He argues that Searle's position may:

“(…) lull us into the (unwarranted) supposition that the giant program would work by somehow simply “matching up” the input Chinese characters with some output Chinese characters. No such program would work, of course”

For a program to work it would have to be:
“extraordinarily supple, sophisticated, and multilayered system, brimming with “world knowledge” and meta-knowledge and meta-meta-knowledge about its own responses, the likely responses of its interlocutor, its own “motivations” and the motivations of the interlocutor, and much, much more”

The point is, that Searle only looks at the man in the box, and not the whole box, which is what answers. While the little man may not have an understanding of the Chinese letters, the man + the reference book does have that understanding. Searle himself argues that this box would pass a Turing test, but that's the whole box, not just the little man inside.

You say

"Let us use another example. Let us say that we have broadcasting towers all over the USA. They are broadcasting all sorts of different programs to all sorts of different people. It is a complex web of towers and receivers but it all seems to work out ok. So, are we to conclude that radio towers are conscious? Of course not, but that is what are are doing with the human experience of consciousness. Lets look at that quickly.

When you experience something, you experience every one of your scenes simultaneously. You remember the sounds, the tastes, the sights...it is all there. However, your brain never really has a point in which all points connect. Your consciousness is something that seems to violate the laws of physics, that things are happening in different locations in space at different times, but for your consciousness, at the same time. This isn't something that is reducible to brain states, and not something that is physically possible in computer technology as we know it. It doesn't matter if it is parallel or not, if things don't touch but are somehow related this is mystifying; and as a result, unreproducible. Perhaps consciousnesses is reducible to one point in the brain we haven't found, but so far, there is no such thing."

And again, I want to refer to Dennett and his "Multiple Drafts theory", which I think is an excellent answer to this. I don't think that consciousness violates physics as such (obviously it doesn't, or it couldn't exist in our physical universe). I think that our consciousness is an amalgamation of sensory input that is processed in our brain and presented in our consciousness as "scenes". I mean, we have a much, much larger flow of sensory input than is presented to us, and our unconscious mind filters though this and presents what is perceived to be relevant inputs to "us" (our conscious minds). I think in the end it is actually reducible to brain states, in the same way that any give program, say firefox with videosift loaded, can be reduced to an electrical state at a given time in my computer.

On the concept on Blue and blueness, I think you are making a Qualia argument. To be honest, I can't remember all the details of that right now, but again Dennet's "Quining Qualia" in one of his books covers it greatly, if my memory serves.

I also love this subject.

Searle rocks.

Even if you don't like the CRE, he's written some of the best overviews of the Philosophy of Mind there is.

In reply to this comment by 8727:
i've always doubted this idea that people think in words, i don't feel like i do


just thought id msg u as i was watching an old clip and noticed u comment
i reply with this ,

" "8727" the thinking in words thing is not important as language just refers to the thought process , comunicatoin wether that be internal comunicatoin within your own brain of concepts you are aware of . ore wether that be the comunicatoin of those conspets in sounds, ore images."


from wiki

Language is a term most commonly used to refer to so called "natural languages" — the forms of communication considered peculiar to humankind. In linguistics the term is extended to refer to the type of human thought process which creates and uses language. Essential to both meanings is the systematic creation and usage of systems of symbols —each referring to linguistic concepts with semantic or logical or otherwise expressive meanings.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language


also as i understand it some people supposedly think in words and others in visuals. I'm undecided as to what i believe.

I did indeed.
I'll look into that, even though I've not been fond of Searle. I think Dennett destroys his argument in Consciousness Explained.

In reply to this comment by jonny:
Your Dennett post on free will is tagged as brief - I think you meant long, since it's just over 10 minutes.

Also, check out the talks by John Searle on free will and consciousness.

Your Dennett post on free will is tagged as brief - I think you meant long, since it's just over 10 minutes.

Also, check out the talks by John Searle on free will and consciousness.

>> ^andybesy:
>> ^sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?

It was a good gag, I laughed out loud.


Some days my arm goes up and some days it doesn't go up.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'philosophy, consciousness, ai' to 'philosophy, consciousness, ai, john searle, philosopher, mind' - edited by mauz15

*1 the people that committed the act were part of an extremist muslim group, basically a cult. they would not have done this act if they weren't in this group and reasoned in that way. thus being motivated by it, yes.

*2 yes, "he is currently pursuing a doctorate in neuroscience at UCLA, using functional magnetic resonance imaging to conduct research"

*3 an illogical belief like believing something supernatural which any intelligent person would easily see why such a thing should be dismissed (such as fairies at the end of my garden). nothing like eating a vegetarian pizza, i could just tell someone was peeved at a reasonable person because i suspect they have vested interests in the beliefs being dismissed.

check out this short talk by sam harris, the best thing by him i think :
http://www.videosift.com/video/Sam-Harris-lectures-on-the-dangers-of-both-religious-fundamentalism-and-religious-moderation

also, i'd add that john searle and alan watts are bad recommendations for views on such subjects. john searle is like a small child in comparison to derek parfit's knowledge of the brain and self. also i'd recommend susan greenfield instead of alan watts (he just talks half truths loosely based on buddhism).

wow - I don't think I've ever heard someone so superficially right and yet so fundamentally wrong. Harris doesn't understand the first thing about brains, mind, spirituality, or any other human experience except on the most superficial level.

Beyond his equating of faith and religion (which are as different as ethics and law), he says things like doctors are more likely to be religious because they have to "play this language game" with people facing their own imminent mortality. Language game? The ultimate human experience - and he equates it with Scrabble.

I wonder if he really believes that the 9/11 attack was religiously motivated (as he claims here). Has he forfeited all of his mighty powers of cognition at the outset and drunk the NeoCon koolaid? It was never about religion - it's about money. As all wars have been. Religion is a lever that those in power often use to motivate others into doing their bidding. Is he really naïve enough to think that skillful leaders would not find other levers to sway willing followers in the absence of religion? It demonstrates a complete lack of human understanding.

There are more poorly conceived notions in this interview than siftbot will even give me space to mention in one comment. But I'll be happy to enumerate them over many comments if anyone is taken in by this snake-oil salesman. If you want some good insight into human behavior, go listen to this guy, or this one, or maybe best this one.

(and btw - regardless of anyone's belief system, I don't see anything here that gives the viewer any insight into how minds or brains work - thus removed from brain channel.)

funneh. yuo moar typey.

it was my favorite line from it as well

In reply to this comment by sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?

>> ^sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?


It was a good gag, I laughed out loud.

>> ^sjpike:
If I proved that determinism is true, would you choose to believe in it?



I think it is the truth and it will be proven to be such at some point. However I think people underestimates how complex reality is. I think the amount of chaos is so out of control under so many levels that we do not have the mental power to compute what is going to happen next. Although some people are pretty good at it.

But if what I said is true it will be 100% possible to simulate a human with a computer. Although that could have been said in the other case as well. I have not religions belief and I am perfectly happy to think of my self as a biological robot just trying to find a bit of peace in this world.

I'll give these guys one thing, they sure do like to talk. I didn't watch all of the John Searle one, but hopefully enough to get some of the point. At first I thought he was arguing that neuro-science was a worthless pursuit, but that doesn't seem to be the case (which is good cause I don't think anything could be further from the truth). But he instead appears to be arguing we should be looking at both sides of the coin, which I agree with. Having an algorithm to explain a behavior means nothing if we can't explain it in a way that's comprehensible. And at this point in time we really aren't even close to such a feat. Trying to exploring multiple paths to understanding consciousness is more likely to bring us towards a more complete picture of exactly what it is. One of the problems I've noticed in academia is the professors become so entrenched in their own line of research its like they've put on a pair of blinders and can't see anything outside of what they've narrowed their sites on. I also think that's one of the reasons you see so little cross over between disciplines, even if they're looking at the same or similar things.