1.) Epiphenomenalism is a philosophical viewpoint. It’s a red herring (I don’t adhere to it) and meaningless to the questions of dualism vs materialism and whether minds emerge from brains. Dualism contains the unfalsifiable element of “spirits”, therefore it is wrong. We know that the kinds of minds which currently exist emerge from brains because the attributes ascribed to the mind occur only in the presence of a brain, and always cease when the brain is question degrades or is destroyed. These are empirical questions and can not be dodged with nonsensical philosophical treatises.

2.) Nothing I’ve written implies determinism, and it truly wouldn’t matter even if it did. If determinism is true, then none of us have any say in what has happened or ever will. It’s not possible to control whether we are to debate it or what we think. As we assume it is false, continuing to raise this irrelevant issue is yet another red herring distracting from meaningful discussion. It’s an attempt to tar the opposing position as wrong due to unwanted consequences.

3.) Yes, the brain’s information is not software in the exact structure and type that computer software is software. However, it contains all the same relevant properties that software does, including semantics and syntax. Software can have functional emergent properties, brains have functional emergent properties. Whether it’s an analogy/metaphor or a definition is meaningless; what counts is whether the properties line up to fulfill the argument.

4.) Your argument, brenda, makes no use of any computational machine of any kind, let alone meaningfully uses Turing or von Neumann’s computer science work. This is completely obvious to anyone paying attention. When you tell a computer scientist you’re arguing computer science without using any, they’re going to notice. This is another ridiculous semantics game; you have completely erased the differences between formal means of computation by mere assertion. Yes, there are different types of computers, and no, they don’t have to be made of silicon and metal. Claiming otherwise will get you laughed out of the room at any computer science department in the world.

By the way, since your ignorance is clear, von Neumann architecture and Turing machines are completely different concepts. Suggesting that all modern computers use von Neumann architecture is false. Other than in academic experiments and theoretical proofs, there aren’t any significant Turing machines, either. These are conceptual frameworks, of which that real world does not have to abide. Indeed, a real world Turing machine is strictly impossible because there is no such thing as unlimited memory.

You were probably trying to say something along the lines of any computation being implementable on a Turing machine. Yes, that’s true, and irrelevant. The various functional compatibilities or equivalencies of different machines, both theoretical and practical, does nothing to support your assertions. It actually undermines them, because it leaves plenty of room for different classes of hardware which can perform the same effects!

5.) Erasing the distinction between hardware and software doesn’t serve your argument. It just makes it transparent how baseless it is. Obviously, software alone cannot cause it to rain. Software is information. It has to be embodied into a piece of hardware before it works. Your brain wouldn’t do anything if left in a jar, either, but this doesn’t suddenly render the information contained in it meaningless.

6.) You don’t know what an ad hominem is. It doesn’t mean insult. It means attempting to discrediting claims solely by identifying irrelevant personal claims about the speaker/author. I didn’t; I thoroughly took apart the argument. Then I sprinkled in some insults for the sole purpose of making my disrespect towards awful, solipsistic argumentation known.

7.) Explain what externalism and dualism have to do with the argument, since you have failed to do that from the very beginning. I ignore any philosophical differences there may be between the two because if there is no functional real-world difference then they may as well be identical according to every line of reasoning I’ve used so far. In other words, you enjoy distinctions without practical difference.

8.) I completely tore apart the Chinese Room statement you presented, and you pretend I said nothing at all. Obviously, a sound argument is sound and a valid argument is valid. I specifically identified where it was unsound and invalid.

9.) I define epiphenomenalism correctly, and then you say it’s wrong. Despite the fact that you’re saying the exact same thing. Might I suggest you check your reading when you don’t notice these oversights?

10.) Really, you think “substance” refers to a particular physical item instead of a class of things? Aren’t you claiming to be extremely well read in philosophy?

11.) What’s the difference between your “externalism” and spirits? Likewise, spirits vs incorporeal abstractions. You continually dodge this point. If it’s not made of matter or energy, what is it? How do you know it exists?

12.) “Searle says it is a mistake to start counting “substance” in the first place and it seems to me this is the scientifically correct position.” How is this not denying materialism? How can any position be scientifically correct when you fail to engage in the slightest empiricism? Do you know what science is? Are you aware of your direct self-contradiction in claiming at one point to do science, and another to do abstract philosophy completely disconnected from the real world?

13.) I don’t believe in functionalism, therefore it’s wrong, is not an argument. You need to show how you identify an object by something other than its properties and behaviors.

14.) Redefining the issue and omitting the relevant details is not interesting, let alone convincing. It’s the same sleight of hand used in the Chinese Room. A correct, complete model of a vacuum cleaner becomes a functional vacuum cleaner as soon as its connected to the proper hardware. You can’t simply hand wave your way out of this. These robots are already real.

15.) It’s truly fascinating; you completely ignored the thrust of my dismantling of the Chinese Room twice before eventually dismissing it out of hand. Let me write a short computer program for you:


#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
 
int main( int argc, char** argv )
{
   if( argc < 3 )
   {
     puts( "Insufficent arguments." ) ;
     return -1 ;
   }
  
   unsigned int rvApples = atoi( argv[1] ) ;
   unsigned int rvBananas = atoi( argv[2] ) ;
  
   if( rvApples > rvBananas )
     puts( "There are more apples than bananas." ) ;
   else if( rvApples == rvBananas )
     puts( "There are equal numbers of apples and bananas." ) ;
   else
     puts( "There are more bananas than apples." ) ;
  
   return 0 ;
}


Since you weren’t able to understand it in the abstract, there’s your proof. Computer programs contain semantics. They are not mere syntax. If they were syntax alone, they could not contain ideas and thus they would not be able to do any computations meaningful to the real world!

My program identifies the relation between two counts, one of apples and one of bananas, provided to it by console argument. Note that the program itself contains the semantics to identify what the arguments mean! It even describes them as such in the output.

If computer programs do not contain semantics, books do not contain semantics. That is how terrible your argument is. It would only ever be used by someone who has never written a single computer program in their life.

16.) So you admit simulations are real and that they can be accurate. But you fail to understand how a completely accurate simulation could be used to drive hardware which performs a specific function. In other words, you’ve admitted the contradiction of thinking robots are real and yet believing their hardware and software are inseparable. They are real; they are separable. These are mere facts, not up for dispute.

Your position is, in effect, an Argument from Incredulity.

17.) Lay down the citation for your vast majority of Cognitive Science departments teaching Searle’s views as accurate. Weren’t you asked for this twice already?

Note, you need to show that they’re taught as correct! Not that they’re taught in order to be discussed or debunked, or for historical perspective. Those are all completely different.

The fact that you are still unaware that the vast majority of the response to Searle’s Chinese Room has been criticism and debunking shows that you refuse to take the fundamentally trivial step of even reading Wikipedia (despite your later claim to have done so).

18.) I don’t mention Wikipedia as an authority. I use it as an encyclopedia, including for the list of references and miscellaneous links to discussion of the issue around the web. If you wanted to argue in good faith, you would attempt to actually address the systems, virtual mind, robot, derived meaning, contextualist, and other minds replies. As it is, you just pretend they don’t exist and continue forwarding talking points blind.

19.) Arrogant? Bully? I’m not the one leaving this nonsense in order to avoid responding to the material. My insults have been superfluous, but when you leave them it’s all you say. That’s ad hominem.

20.) “Thought experiment” doesn’t explain anything. You don’t get the redefine words in a way that suits your conclusion in an argument. If the counter-party challenges you on your question begging, circular logic, or lack of definitions you have to address the issues or admit you are wrong.

21.) I’ve already demonstrated there is semantic content in computer programs. Return to point 15. Again, this is identical to claiming there is no semantic content in books, and that is such obvious rubbish I don’t even know where else to go with it.

22.) You’ve already proven that you have no idea what a computer program looks like. It’s not A + B = C. It’s Apples + Bananas = TotalFruitCount.

23.) Once again, you do not understand what an emergent property (or behavior) is. Let’s go back to the vacuum cleaner robot. Once I install the software into the machine firmware, and supply power via the battery, the machine demonstrates the emergent property of cleaning the floor. Amazing. Astounding.

24.) My inline statements weren’t supposed to be a formal argument. Thanks for disingenuously construing them as such.

P1 Searle doesn’t define what an idea is.
P2 Ideas provide the meaning behind semantics.
P3 Semantics is a key part of Searle’s Chinese Room argument.

C Searle must define an idea or his Chinese Room argument is incomplete, resting on unstated premises, and therefore invalid.

See how trivial it was to rearrange that? Why didn’t you?

25.) The implication was that Searle arbitrarily excluded classes as a mental trick in order to build an indefensible argument. It’s irrelevant that Searle or you may believe that other animals could have minds.

By the way, you haven’t yet demonstrated that human brains have semantic contents by Searle’s (wrong) definition. You do have to do that for this worthless argument to make any sense. Otherwise you’re question begging.

Show me the semantic contents of my mind, or anyone else’s. You can use neither ideas nor information to demonstrate this, because they’re not part of the (wrong) argument Searle presented that you declared correct.

See the paradox yet? Searle, this oh-so-incredibly brilliant philosopher, managed to (badly) restate a sub-case of the problem of other minds. You’d trivially understand that this is one of the eminent responses if you had in fact read the Wikipedia page.

26.) I demonstrated that his premise one was false, repeatedly now, and that two and three are incomplete and make no sense by themselves. Read it again and try directly addressing my criticisms instead of glossing over the whole subject.

27.) Eliza is not an example of strong AI. You, once again, raise a different definition and then misuse it for your argument, ignoring what the term actually means. A strong AI must, by definition, meet or exceed human intelligence. It would almost certainly be self-aware as a necessary consequence. Clearly it would be a general intelligence with many skills and not specialized, because that is a quality human intelligence has.

You managed to miss my declaration that strong AI has not been achieved. Unless you count brains, which would suffer from confusion of definitions.

28.) It’s all too clever how you evade all responsibility for your argument by failing to define the terms you use. What is property dualism and how does it differ from dualism? Why does it matter to the argument?

29.) If Searle and you do not think minds are magic, how do they work? Do you not understand that magic is a stand-in here for lack of process and lack of substance? If you cannot describe how minds work in terms of observable physical reality, you believe in magic. If you think there is something more than physical reality, you are the functional equivalent of a Cartesian dualist.

30.) Let me see if I understand this. There is no such thing as substance in the world. That is your world view?

What are atoms? How do they fit into your conceptual framework, which apparently allows for… nothing?

What is energy? How is it classified with regards to … again, nothing? The empty set?

31.) OK, let’s declare for the sake of argument and tossing aside this tedious label quibbling that your philosophy is in some way distinct from dualism. How? Your view point as expressed appears to have no verifiable traits of any kind and thus cannot be pinned down or examined (pretty damn convenient). Maybe it means that reality is fake? I don’t know. You don’t explain it or assign any properties or principles of any kind.

32.) This is another meaningless game. Where is the number two? Is that you, Plato?

The number two is a concept. An idea. It has no physical form. It only exists in the organization of real things. It is not an independent entity.

Go ahead. Explain to me how your “ontology” (fancy) provides for the existence of the number two as something other than an idea. Similarly, try to explain what two even means without reference to objects or substance, since you’ve explicitly disavowed them.

33.) What is meaning, brenda? Where does it exist?

Meaning is created by people (conscious minds). It’s the mere connection and organization of real things. Patterns of mind and energy.

Show me the source of meaning in your philosophy. Mind you, it had best be something different from what I just said, because if you admit that premise you just collapsed the entire house of cards on which the Chinese Room was built.

Better yet, if you’re really interested in winning this argument instead of bloviating for discredited abstract philosophy, show me how meaning would exist in the absence of humanity. That would prove by implication just about all the premises you need.

Keep in mind, you cannot redefine meaning or semantics to do this.

meaning, noun :

[1] what is intended to be, or actually is, expressed or indicated; signification; import

[2] the end, purpose, or significance of something

[3] the nonlinguistic cultural correlate, reference, or denotation of a linguistic form; expression

semantics, noun :

[1] the study of meaning

[2] the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote

[3] the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.

34.) I’ll leave you with a couple of formal arguments.

P1 Information is any sequence of symbols which contains a message.
P2 The content of an idea is functionally equivalent to information, and often expressed through it.
P3 Meaning is the referential content of an idea.
P4 The referred item may exist independently of all conscious agent, but if it were to do so none would be able to identify or use the referential relationship.
P5 Indeed, without any agents, there is no source for the reference itself.
P6 Even more fundamentally, the lack of conscious agents will mean the lack of language.
P7 No objective observer, or external universal agent, exists.
P8 Only conscious observers of a certain sophistication (that is, people) understand and utilize meaning in the context described above.

C Meaning is defined by people.

P1 Language is principally composed of semantics and syntax.
P2 Semantics is the meaning of the elements of the language, whereas syntax is the rules which bind those elements into a larger framework.
P3 Programming languages provide for the inclusion of both semantics, which define the purpose and function of the programs written in them, and syntax, which provides the rules by which that purpose must be expressed.
P4 Hardware operates according to its software (programming).
P5 Software is written using programming languages, and thus all useful software will contain the fundamental elements of those languages.
P6 Relevant combinations of hardware and software may be deemed a robot.

C Robots contain semantics.

I nearly forgot to mention, I’m long since post transitioned. My paperwork including birth certificate all have my name on them, not the one that was assigned me all those years ago. My life has moved on, friends and family have taken the journey with me, and now not because I enforced, or forced anything, but I’m only called Samantha, Sam, Sammie, Sunshine, or Carter. All the rest, the past, is there, it’s just not were we all are.

My friends and family when telling the old stories of our history together never slip and use old names or pronouns, I just have some amazing people around my I guess, because they use my name and the correct pronouns. Several have pulled me aside at different times and said something to the effect that they have trouble believing I ever pretended to be a guy. That’s a feeling I can very much relate to.

So life does go on, and eventually the past becomes just that. Internally some of us are blessed with I guess a feeling of coming home, so there’s no learning curve?

Oddly enough in my past, I never had any meaningful sense of self, or connection to my name. The discord was that significant to me, so I always joked you can call me anything but late for dinner. And I’d happily answer to whatever you wanted to call me because it was just easier than getting abused. In terms of psychology I created a conscious fracture to protect me from an outside world that either could not, or would not, see me. My Mum knew and accepted me, some of my close female relatives did, and apparently many, many others suspected something. They knew I wasn’t gay, in fact I read so strongly back then as a lesbian, lesbians accepted me as one of their own. I was even engaged once, and she broke up with me because she wasn’t ready for her folks to know she was gay and so she said she couldn’t introduce me to them because they’d know.

So, anyway, fast forwarding to the time to do something, I went on a vision quest to find my name, and once I found it, it was, for me as though that had always been my name. Though truth to tell growing up I wanted to be Samantha Stevens, so it’s no real wonder it was effortless and natural. People, even those that had known me for decades were amazed at how effortless and instantly I answered to and reacted to being addressed by my real name and how the old name didn’t get a reaction from me at all. In fact to respond to or recognize the old name I had to force myself to remember to listen for it around people who were still adjusting.

I was very backwards from most peoples experience.

Sam.

Thanks for the response (above), but I was somewhat puzzled that you neglected to respond to my anecdote about how Searle’s Chinese Room was treated at UCSD, which does seem to be evidence against your claim about the academic response to the Chinese Room. Again, I’ll ask — can you point to some specific published statements to back up your claim that Searle’s argument “won the day”?

Also, could you suggest a relevant layman’s explanation of the philosopher’s distinction between “substance” and “particles moving in lines of force”? It seems that we agree that “All that exists are particles moving in lines of force.”, except that later you claim that your “ontology includes things like universities and numbers” which you claim are not particles or forces. Maybe you could clarify?

Finally — among the various things you’ve linked or more vaguely pointed to, could you suggest one which you consider the best response to the question of what (if not behavior) distinguishes “minds” from other things?

I look forward to your response.

You mean like how one response to climate denialists is that 98% of scientists believe it is real? Like that? It isn’t proof but it is a valid reason for considering that one’s denialism is mistaken. In the same way the fact that university CogSci department heads teach Searle’s views should at least give you pause to re-examine your arrogant attitude.

“As to the first part, the point is that argument is so bad even Wikipedia knows it’s been completely trounced.”

I encourage you to cite wikipedia in your next paper at your university, see what happens.

“If you believe that something exists which has no physical form, you are a non-materialist.”

Do universities exist? Could you please point out to me the physical substance that is “university”?

“If you were quoting Searle, you ought to leave a reference.”

I have. Similarly if you are going to argue with me I expect that you will, you know, actually present an argument. When were you planning on doing that or do you always rely on your ad hominems to bully others into silence?

“One trick Searle used here is actually a form of Argument by (Re)Definition”

Actually this is not true. In a thought experiment you get to stipulate your terms however you wish.

“he draws a distinction between syntax and semantics that is meaningless to the argument at hand. Syntax and semantics cannot be separated from language like this; it’s completely obvious that they are both necessary and both present in any language processor.”

You again know nothing of what you’re talking about. The computer you are using right now could not function if it were anything other than a purely syntactic processor. That is the whole point of ANY computer language, to provide a syntax with which meaning can be assigned to blips and bits. Meaning, semantic content, does not exist outside of the minds which assign it to events in the world. It is not a thing out there sitting in your PC somewhere.

“1) No, programs are not (purely) syntactical processes. A computer program has both syntax and semantics in its structure. A computer program that processes language has these in its structure”

Please point to the semantic content in this valid expression “A + B = C”. I’ll wait.

“and it also has emergent behavior”

Seriously? You seriously believe that computers have emergent behavior? Ok, please explain the reason for your bald assertion.

“That Searle doesn’t even understand the difference between the two and just dumps them into the same premise shows his badly incomplete understanding of the issue.”

Oh ok, I see. You’re just an arrogant asshat who thinks that if you just say things that makes them true. Got it.

“here’s a clarity premise missing here defining what the hell the intended distinction of semantic versus syntactical content was even supposed to be”

Well it’s not so much a “clarity premise”, whatever the hell that is, as the difference between an arrogant fool and any first year student of logic. I’ll refer you here to Gottlob Frege’s seminal work “Sense and Reference” but you’d probably be out of your depth with it so I’d advise that after reading it you consult someone who can explain elementary linguistic analysis to you.

“There’s yet another, much more important, premise missing that fails to define what an idea is. This invalidates the entire argument, since if an idea can be any random shit Searle makes up, combined with the implication that only minds can hold ideas, then everything has a mind.”

The concept of an idea is not missing because the argument does not depend it. It does assume that the reader has a basic education in the philosophy of logic, which you clearly lack, but that doesn’t make it invalid.

Your argument that:
(1) “an idea can be any random shit Searle makes up”
(2) “only minds can hold ideas”
therefore “everything has a mind”

Is an invalid argument because the conclusion does not follow from your premises. It doesn’t even pass the laugh test.

“The reason being there’s no way he could put it directly in here without revealing the dumb magic trick. As soon as we insert the conscious mind premise, we have to admit that there’s absolutely no reason to think that only human brains can be minds.”

The Chinese Room thought experiment does NOT say that only human brains can have minds. I’m pretty sure that dogs and cats and chimps and even aliens have or could have minds. What CAN’T have a mind is a digital computer for reasons the argument demonstrates.

“In summary, the conclusion is unsound because premise one was false. It’s also invalid, because its structure fails to define what a mind is.”

You have not shown that ANY premise was false. You complained that your pet premises were not included and rejected it for that reason. Nor does failing to provide a definition of mind in premise 2 invalidate the argument. Logic… UR doin’ it wrong.

“You need a citation for that first part. It’s mere argument by assertion again. Oh, and I can disprove it by counter-example: I believe in strong AI. Specifically, that strong AI is physically feasible, not that strong AI already exists — unless you count brains, that is.”

Sure you can, but you are nobody. There is no longer any serious researcher who actually believes that their programs are living minds. In the past people Like Minsky really did believe that their creations, like Eliza, were real minds. Do you believe that Eliza is a mind? Do you believe that the software AIs you meet in your PC games are living minds? Because if strong AI is true then they are real minds and you are guilty of murder many times over.

“Do you have any appreciation for how many logical fallacies you’ve managed to drop on the internet recently?”

Um… zero? You know, instead of telling me I am wrong why don’t you *show* me I’m wrong? That would actually impress me.

“First, find me the reference for his rejection of dualism, since this guy has always been about as clear as a storm cloud.”

Ok, Why I Am Not a Property Dualist

“Second, of course he rejects materialism. He thinks minds are magic, and that a system which functionally behaves exactly like a mind is not a mind. That’s dualism, by every meaningful definition.

Um.. yes he does, no he does not think minds are magic, no he is not a functionalist, no rejecting functionalism does not imply dualism and no you clearly do not even know what dualism means.

“Third, demonstrate how and why your philosophy concept-dropping differs from dualism in a meaningful way, or retract your nonsense about there being any difference. This is the same bullshit tactic Creationists used with Intelligent Design; the old shtick became too discredited, so they renamed it.”

Dualism divides the world into two substances, materialism into one. I and many others simply reject the category of “substance”. I get to do that. It fits in just fine with a scientifically naturalistic understanding of the world. One that is categorically opposed to creationism or ID.

“You’ve basically claimed dualism is something other than dualism because it’s not called dualism.”

No I have not. Dualism really is the belief that two different substances, spirit and matter, are all that ultimately exist.

” If your model of reality allows for anything other than observable, material, verifiable, real objects, that’s dualism! That’s what it means!”

Um.. no that is not what it means. There are lots of things that are not observable or “material objects”. Like the number two. Please point out to me where the number, not numeral, two resides? Please also note that I am not thereby claiming the number two is spirit stuff. It’s just that my ontology includes things like universities and numbers and yours does not.

“Again, you haven’t even read Wikipedia.”

I do, I just don’t end there.

Reply below for space and… because you obviously put so much effort into this.