more from this thinker     |     more from this text


Single Idea 5789

[filed under theme 17. Mind and Body / C. Functionalism / 7. Chinese Room ]

Full Idea

It seems to me now that syntax is not intrinsic to the physics of the system, but is in the eye of the beholder.

Clarification

Syntax is sentence structure (where 'semantics' is meaning)

Gist of Idea

I now think syntax is not in the physics, but in the eye of the beholder

Source

John Searle (The Mystery of Consciousness [1997], Ch.1)

Book Ref

Searle,John R.: 'The Mystery of Consciousness' [Granta 1997], p.14


A Reaction

This seems right, in that whether strung beads are a toy or an abacus depends on the user. It doesn't follow that the 'beholder' stands outside the physics. A beholder is another physical system, of a particular type of high complexity.


The 11 ideas with the same theme [counterexample of non-conscious function]:

Maybe understanding doesn't need consciousness, despite what Searle seems to think [Searle, by Chalmers]
A program won't contain understanding if it is small enough to imagine [Dennett on Searle]
If bigger and bigger brain parts can't understand, how can a whole brain? [Dennett on Searle]
I now think syntax is not in the physics, but in the eye of the beholder [Searle]
A program for Chinese translation doesn't need to understand Chinese [Searle]
The person couldn't run Searle's Chinese Room without understanding Chinese [Kim]
Is the room functionally the same as a Chinese speaker? [Rey]
Searle is guilty of the fallacy of division - attributing a property of the whole to a part [Rey]
Maybe the whole Chinese Room understands Chinese, though the person doesn't [Chalmers]
A computer program is equivalent to the person AND the manual [Lowe]
The Chinese Room should be able to ask itself questions in Mandarin [Westaway]