As the old analogy goes, a Martian who knew how to manipulate a chess board to produce all legal moves would still not know how to play, without understanding that one is trying to win. Focusing on symbol manipulation only ignores semantics and pragmatics, without which language is incoherent, and whittled away to an idle assembly of abstractions. — The Great Whatever
The problem I see with the Chinese Room and your above example is that if you buy into the computational theory of mind you can see how each respectively fits into the theory. Alternatively, if you think there's something missing, you see how each respectively demonstrates that position as well. The analogies seem only to illustrate confirmation biases in intuition rather than insight into what is really going on. — Soylent
This feels like a faulty analogy as well. The manipulation of a chess board to produce legal moves would include rules about situational moves implicit with an understanding of the object of the game (e.g., what to do when in check). In this case, we are making an intuitive judgement that knowing all the legal moves is insufficient to produce an understanding of the game, but we are doing so from a state of ignorance. The scope of knowing ALL the legal moves might in fact entail an understanding of the object of the game. — Soylent
So to be a horse is have to properties A, B, and C and to be a rabbit is to have properties X, Y, and Z. — Michael
At T2 we decide to name those things that have the properties in the first set "rabbit" and those things that have the properties in the second set "horse". So to be a horse is to have properties X, Y, and Z and to be a rabbit is to have properties A, B, and C. — Michael
At T1, Animal 1 has properties A, B, and C, and so is a horse. At T2, Animal 1 has properties A, B, and C, and so is a rabbit. — Michael
As I said before, what it means to be gay (or a horse) depends on how we use the word. If we change the way we use the word then we change what it means to be gay (or a horse). — Michael
Those things that weren't horses according to the old use of the word — Michael
Saying that Thumper isn't a horse even after the change in how we use the word "horse" because he doesn't satisfy the old use is like saying that homosexuals aren't gay even after the change in how we use the word "gay" because they don't satisfy the old use. — Michael
If Thumper were a horse, he would have a long face, and a mane, and a horse cock.
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 equines and it at T2 "horse" refers to rabbits then that T2 rabbits are horses. — Michael
This is because to be a horse is to be a certain kind of animal...
So it's a misunderstanding to think that if I call a rabbit a 'horse,' it doesn't become a horse? Consider that this is literally the position you are defending. — The Great Whatever
Only according to the current meaning of "horse". But I've changed it. You might as well say that if so-and-so was gay then he'd be carefree and happy. — Michael
Yes, and at T2 to be a horse is to be a member of the rabbit family. — Michael
No, at T2 to be the referent of 'horse' is to be a rabbit. To be a horse is still -- to be a horse, not a rabbit! — The Great Whatever
You haven't changed the meaning of "horse". You've changed exchanged the word for another. Now you call a "horse" a "rabbit", but you still mean horse. — Marchesk
If you coin a new word 'gay' that means 'homosexual,' it follows that homosexual people were already gay — The Great Whatever
If you change the meaning of 'horse' as a linguistic community, you have changed which animals are the appropriate referents of which words, not what horses are, or what it is to be a horse.
And if we coin a new word "horse" that means "rabbit" it follows that rabbits are, and were already, horses. — Michael
This is like saying that if you change the meaning of 'gay' as a linguistic community you have changed which people are the appropriate referents of this word, not what gays are, or what it is to be gay. — Michael
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.