= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
dxu comments on Hedonium's semantic problem - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (61)
...What?
And how is the "all-must-have-referents theory" relevant to Stuart Armstrong's original example which you first took issue with?
I build theories by observing how real humans communicate.
Right, and terms for objects in virtual reality can refer to those representations. That's the same thing I was getting at with my distinction involving Santa and neural patterns, except in this case, there's no claim that the VR object exists in the physical world, and thus nothing to get confused about. Hence, your objection to Santa does not apply here.
From my first reply:
The linked article doesn't reality demonstrate that. In particular, if you are going to appeal to robot bodies as giving a level of causal connection sufficient to ground symbols, then Searle still has a point about the limitations of abstract, unembodied, software.
I'm bringing it up because you are. Its like you're saying it's OK for you to appeal to unjustified premises, but if I bring it up, I'm at fault for changing the subject.
If that means taking their statements at face value, without allowing for metaphor .or misleading phraseology....then I have to tell you that there is a thing called a cold that someone can catch, and a thing called a temper someone can lose.
Is that a fact? In particular is it is it a fact that people are referring in my technical sense of "refering" , and not in some loose and popular sense , eg talking about,