Another ad hominem, I'd like you to refute my claim that Searle's argument is essentially 100% magical thinking.

And yes, if for example, medicine would be no worse at curing cancer than it is today, yet doctors asserted that crystal healing is a serious study, that would reflect badly on the field at large, despite most of it being sound.

▲

dahart 6 days ago | parent | next [-]

Searle refutes your claim that there’s magical thinking.

“Searle does not disagree with the notion that machines can have consciousness and understanding, because, as he writes, "we are precisely such machines". Searle holds that the brain is, in fact, a machine, but that the brain gives rise to consciousness and understanding using specific machinery.”

▲

torginus 6 days ago | parent [-]

But the core of the original argument is that programs only manipulate symbols and consciousness can never arise just through symbol manipulation - which here then becomes 'we have not discovered the algorithms' for consciousness yet.

It's just a contradiction.

	▲	dahart 6 days ago \| parent [-]
		When you say something that contradicts his statements, it doesn’t mean he’s wrong, it most likely means you haven’t understood or interpreted his argument correctly. The Wikipedia page you linked to doesn’t use the word “algorithm”, so the source of the contradiction you imagine might be you. Searle says he thinks humans are biological machines, so your argument should withstand that hypothesis rather than dismiss it.

▲

globnomulous 6 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Why on earth do you take it as an ad hominem attack? Do you really think your comment isn't dismissive or pompous?

▲

malfist 6 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Another ad hominem, just like you calling anyone who talks about the chinese room thought experiment a deist?