Path: utzoo!utgpu!utstat!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!orion.cf.uci.edu!uci-ics!venera.isi.edu!smoliar From: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu (Stephen Smoliar) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Question on Chinese Room Argument Message-ID: <7645@venera.isi.edu> Date: 27 Feb 89 17:04:41 GMT References: <4298@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <8174@netnews.upenn.edu> <764@htsa.uucp> <7586@venera.isi.edu> <230@nbires.nbi.com> Sender: news@venera.isi.edu Reply-To: smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) Organization: USC-Information Sciences Institute Lines: 41 In article <230@nbires.nbi.com> matt@nbires.UUCP (Matthew Meighan) writes: >In article <7586@venera.isi.edu> smoliar@vaxa.isi.edu.UUCP (Stephen Smoliar) >writes: > >> . . . An argument which is based on assertions >> of what it "obvious" to introspection is no argument at all > >Can you prove this, or is it just obvious to you? > >It seems to me that the assertion that only objectively-provable >things are "true" is a totally subjective one, hence false by its >own criteria. What evidence is there for this belief? > TOUCHE! This is a well-turned argument, forcing me to retreat to reconsider what it was I REALLY meant! Ultimately, I am trying to get away from using the word "obvious" too carelessly; but in doing so I seem to have fallen into the same trap! So how can I get myself out of it? When we are discussing the physical sciences, I suspect that it is possible to talk about "obvious" manifestations of phenomena. (Note that these manifestations need not necessarily be veridical. Thus, it is "obvious" that one arc shape is larger than another, even if we can demonstrate that they are both identical.) What I REALLY wanted to object to is a tendency to hide behind a word like "obvious" when we are trying to discuss words like "understand." Thus, I would argue that the manifestation of intelligent behavior cannot be observed the way we observe the size of a physical object. I admit that this point is open to debate; but as long as we are debating it, we should probably lay off words like "obvious." >>(Incidentally, I believe >>it was Harry Truman who coined a phrase to describe an argument which is >>supported by nothing more than an over-abundance of verbiage; he called >>it "The Big Lie.") > >This falsely equates subjective experience with "nothing more than an >over-abundance of verbiage." The two are not equivalent. Subjective >experience, or perception, is certainly "more than verbiage." > This was not my point. I merely wanted to illustrate what one of my mathematics professors once called "proof by intimidation." We should know better than to invoke such arguments.