/lit/ - Literature

According to Searle, the sentences ...

>Sam smokes habitually.
>Does Sam smoke habitually?
>Sam, smoke habitually!
>Would that Sam smoked habitually!

... each indicate the same propositional content (Sam smoking habitually) but differ in the illocutionary force indicated (respectively, a statement, a question, a command and an expression of desire)

Who tf gave this man credibility. What is even the point of doing this?

>>15729001
I've always hated Searle. He has such a midwit take on everything. The best I can say about him is that he writes fairly clearly. And yet, every sentence is somehow infused with his annoying midwit attitude.

>>15729040
This is what annoys me about him as well. Every take seems like it’s coming from the type of person who has never read any political theory or philosophy. The type of middle American retard we meet every day

>>15729006
>Who tf gave this man credibility. What is even the point of doing this?

The point is to give Derrida and Davidson something to btfo

>>15729066
The only good thing Searle ever did was btfo Derrida. Not that that's a difficult thing to do, but it was fun to watch. But yes, Davidson is orders of magnitude more talented and insightful.

>>15729001
>Is there a bigger scam artist “modern philosopher” than this man?
Daniel Dennett. At least everyone knows to call Sam Harris a retard. For some reason, Dennett is still taken seriously.

>>15729001
>defending rent control
Lol

>>15729001
>” The treatment of landlords in Berkeley is comparable to the treatment of blacks in the South ... our rights have been massively violated and we are here to correct that injustice."

>>15729006
Sam b smokin habetuly dawg no matta how u say it like damn
>he does be smokin
>aye what do sam be smokin?
>get this gas cuh!!!!
>Damn he smokin!
Yooo see but let's keep it do ther be sticky sticky in each one tho? He gotta be smokin on sumthin.... gas is ther if u ask

>>15729413
I was forced to go to black prison school as a white for ditching class and this is incomprehensible yet exactly how they sound.

Congrats

>>15729319
Ya let’s hoard all the living spaces around where all the jobs are and then expect people to make more money every year to pay for their living expenses

I’m a legit fascist and even I don’t think that’s fair at all

>>15729562
I had a job where I was one of 3 white guys on my shift. Picked it up pretty quick.

I was in the last class he taught at berkeley. Awful lecturer. Super senile, he would say the same stories 3+ times. For some reason he thinks every american should know the name of the 5 japanese destroyers sunk at the battle of midway, i shit you not.

At the end of the semester our hot japanese GSI and a few other girls reported him for sexual assault. Berkeley pushed it under the rug and let him keep his emeritus title but didnt let him around young philosophy girls anymore

>Every american should know the name of the 5 japanese destroyers sunk at the battle of midway.
Incredibly based
>At the end of the semester our hot japanese GSI and a few other girls reported him for sexual assault.
Astronomically based

>>15729717

It felt more embarrassing than based but i see where youre coming from

>>15729583
Look up a kahn academy video on it.

>>15729741
Embarrassment is a female spook dumbfuck lmfao

>>15729687
His emeritus has since been removed, fyi

>>15729754
Or do you mean to say:

Is embarrassment a female spook??

See, what I’ve done is shown you that how our language is formatted, changes the meaning! Isn’t that neat?

>>15729746
One search on YouTube and this looks like some sort of grift. Also I will not listen to modern Indians unless they smoke Hasheesh in the dirt out of a chillum

>>15729313
Dennett is a decent philosopher. Searle, not so much.

> John Searle, reviewing The Age of Spiritual Machines, disagrees with Kurzweil's interpretation. Searle argues that while Kasparov was "quite literally, playing chess" the computer in contrast was doing "nothing remotely like it;" instead, it was merely manipulating "a bunch of meaningless symbols". Searle offers a variant of his Chinese room argument, calling it the Chess Room Argument, where instead of answering questions in Chinese, the man in a room is playing chess. Or rather, as Searle explains, he is inside the room manipulating symbols which are meaningless to him, while his actions result in winning chess games outside the room. Searle concludes that like a computer, the man has no understanding of chess. Searle compares Deep Blue's victory to the manner in which a pocket calculator can beat humans at arithmetic; he adds that it is no more significant than a steel robot which is too tough for human beings to tackle during a game of American football. Kurzweil counters that the very same argument could be made of the human brain, since the individual neurons have no true understanding of the bigger problem the brain is working on but, added together, they produce what is known as consciousness.

>Searle continues by contrasting simulation of something with "duplication or recreation" of it. Searle points out a computer can simulate digestion, but it will not be able to digest actual pizza. In the same way, he says, computers can simulate the processes of a conscious brain, but that does not mean it is conscious. Searle has no objection to constructing an artificial consciousness producing brain "using some chemistry different from neurons" so long as it duplicates "the actual causal powers of the brain" which he says precludes computation by itself, since that only involves symbol manipulation. Searle concludes by saying the increased computational power that Kurzweil predicts "moves us not one bit closer to creating a conscious machine", instead he says the first step to building conscious machines is to understand how the brain produces consciousness, something we are only in the infancy of doing.

As if a machine truly feeling or knowing makes any fucking difference to us when it’s processing variables and human behavior patterns faster than we can think/react. He’s so stuck on the semantics of “consciousness” that he fails to see Kurzweil pointing out that you won’t be able to tell the difference between real consciousness and the mechanical representation of it.

Searle is the same kind of soul that becomes a lawyer because they like winning semantic arguments; typical of people who hold no true values in life

>>15729040
>>15729053
>take

>>15729001
>op mentions everything but searles main area of study

>>15729832
>Dennett is a decent philosopher.
He's literally brainleddit philosopher. He's absolute shit and his takes are borderline retarded. If Searl is shit, then Dennet is dogshit.

>>15730065
this
>>15729872
seethe strong AI proponent

>>15729872
If a computer is extremely good at simulating consciousness but isn't conscious, it isn't a person, it's a tool that simulate consciousness.
If a computer is actually conscious, it is a person.
The implications of the latter are incredibly significant, the former is merely impressive.
If I mathematically simulate a black hole on a computer, I have not created a black hole.
I bet you run out of the theater if there's an oncoming train on the screen.

>>15729001
Rent controls leads to housing shortages (because land developers' incentives to build go down) and urban decay (because landlord incentives to maintain go down). Sand Francisco is a great case study.

>>15729001
nah he's pretty based

bugmen don't like him

>>15729085
Except JD totally btfo'd Searle. Read "Limited Inc." He's laughing at Searle on every page. It's so vicious it almost caused Searle to shut down and short circuited his publishing career.

He was completely btfo'd by Derrida

>>15731048
lol fucking destroyed

>>15731048
Isn't that simply a question of accuracy? As in, if you were to actively "simulate" the sounds, sights, and movements of that train (rather than simply the sights of it on screen) you would essentially have a train?

>>15729001
Yeah I'm not a fan of speech act theory. The only worthwhile content that came out of it was the idea of locution, illocution, and perlocution (the act of speaking, the act of implying, the act of inferring).

I much prefer Grice.

>>15733277
>Grice
severely lacking in CUTEness, unlike maiboi

>>15734175
You're just jealous because Austin looks like a creepy SS doctor.

Unlike HP Grice, who looks like he lives fucking eternally; his latest incarnation is Dean Norris.

>Austin looks like a creepy SS doctor
are all gricefags in this much denial?

>>15731013
You've never even read his philosophical works. Hating him because you don't like his positions is retard-tier behavior.

>>15732011
>It's so vicious it almost caused Searle to shut down and short circuited his publishing career.
Lol, in your dreams.

>>15734293
>You've never even read his philosophical works.
I have read his book Consciousness Explained, which is fucking stupid. His philosophical positions are retarded, even if they aren't even ultimately his. "Consciousness is a third-person phenomena (even though it's clearly not) and we aren't conscious in the first-person sense (which we clearly are)." "DUDE, INTUITION PUMPS LMAO."

>Hating him because you don't like his positions is retard-tier behavior.
Yeah hating him for his philosophical positions alone is retarded. I just think they are dumb positions to hold since they fly in the fact of common sense so blatantly, but people hold dumb positions all the time, especially in academia. It's the fact that he's enough of a jackass to label himself and his New Atheist buddies "brights" just because they don't believe in God. I couldn't care less that he's an atheist, but it goes to show how full of himself and thoughtless he really is to actually go ahead and do something like that. He's not even a fucking midwit, he's just a straight up brainlet.

>>15734476
He's regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century. Sounds like you've only read his pop books for the general public.

>>15734527
>one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century
>writes pop trash for the masses
Hmm...

>>15734527
>He's regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of the 20th century.
And? He's relatively famous among the Nu Atheist crowd, who are philosophical brainlets. That doesn't mean his work isn't shit. Regard for a person's work =/= to the actual worth of said work.

>Sounds like you've only read his pop books for the general public.
If you have good or at least plausible ideas, even if you dumb the material down, they will still shine through. Likewise, dumb ideas are still very idiotic whether the main audience is the general public or a peer reviewed paper. That's why I have respect for people like Nagel or Chalmers despite not 100% agreeing with them: they can present ideas that aren't dumb to the general populace and still get the majority of what they wanted across perfectly. You are using the same type of logic that gender studies people use to make their non-field into something prestigious.

>>15734476
>"Consciousness is a third-person phenomena (even though it's clearly not) and we aren't conscious in the first-person sense (which we clearly are)."
way to miss the point brainlet

>>15734612
>the Nu Atheist crowd
Who gives a fuck about pop trash? No one serious reads that shit, especially atheists.

>Nagel or Chalmers
Nagel's early philosophical work was solid, but he became a major-league idiot in his later years. Chalmers has always been a complete brainlet.

>>15729006
Isn't this just Austin?

>>15729001
his major sin is that he writes like this

>>15734665
>Who gives a fuck about pop trash? No one serious reads that shit, especially atheists.
>The God Delusion
> God isn't Great
>Breaking the Spell
>Letter to a Christian Nation
>The End of Faith
>All came out within like 2 years of one another and all were pop trash books (including the one written by Dennet as are most of his books tbqh) directed towards the Nu Atheist crowd. That's the most bald-faced lie I have ever heard.

>>15734665
(I fucked up the greentext)
Who gives a fuck about pop trash? No one serious reads that shit, especially atheists.
>The God Delusion
> God isn't Great
>Breaking the Spell
>Letter to a Christian Nation
>The End of Faith
All came out within like 2 years of one another and all were pop trash books (including the one written by Dennet as are most of his books tbqh) directed towards the Nu Atheist crowd. That's the most bald-faced lie I have ever heard.

>>15734745
Sorry, what point are you trying to make?

>>15731777
On it's own from an autistic purely economical perspective, in combination with holding capital and hoards of currrency responsible for living standards it works excellently. All these socialist policies "don't work" because capital and people who believe in it fully intend and declare to sabotage it with capital flight and what not, this leads to the fascist route of violent repression being the only viable one.

>>15731777
Capitals "incentives" "go down" all the time for reasons only it itself decides.
>oh you aren't gonna bail us out with billions of tax dollars when we fuck up the entire housing market?
>that's too bad our incentives are gonna go down :^)

>>15734835
Dennett is the type of psued that you hate and you are coping by trying to paint him otherwise.

>>15735769
Huh? I said nobody serious reads his (or anyone's) pop trash.

>>15734527
No he's not dude I can name a bunch of analytic philosophers not to mention a bunch of continentals who are all more important in philosophy than Daniel fucking Dennett.
>>15729001
Searle is a terrible person but his philosophical work is fine, I don't know why the thing about direction of fit or speech acts confuses you, that all comes from Austin and Anscombe and so forth.

>>15736478
Lol, no.

>>15736478
>Searle is a terrible person
Weak basedboy detected.

>>15736478
>I can name a bunch of analytic philosophers not to mention a bunch of continentals who are all more important in philosophy than Daniel fucking Dennett.
name 1 (one)

oh, and try to name one that dennett himself didn't single handedly btfo

>>15736358
That's optimistic, unless you are assuming all of his cronies that glowingly praise allof his works don't read them.

>>15736711
Saul Kripke since he actually made meaningful contributions to the philosophy of language and logic compared to Dennett's pretty much non-existent contributions towards anything
WVO Quine
Martin Heidegger
Sartre
Lacan
Freud
Camus
Bertrand Russell
Edmund Husserl
Ludwig Wittgenstein
G.E.M. Anscombe
Phillipa Foot
Alasdair MacIntyre
Carnap

All of these people made more meaningful contributions to philosophy than Dennett ever did. It's not even up for debate. Dennett really hasn't done anything meaningful since the 80s. Ever since he's been riding the wave of shitty pop-phil books because even compared to people like Chalmers, who really doesn't do all that much he's a hack.


Why the fuck do you suck Dennett's dick? This goes past any malcontent I have towards him and more towards you being such a fanatic you feel the need to white knight a grown man with dumb hot takes on a Syrian statue carving forum.

>>15736757
*because even compared to people like Chalmers, who really doesn't do all that much DD is a hack.

>>15736757
You are a clueless moron who knows nothing about philosophy.

>>15736860
Crymore, you gormless, beta male faggot

>>15736875
Go read some more Lacan, you pseud clown.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VddLlnOZIfY
watch his portrayal of Kant in the first 15 minutes of this lecture. The guy is a fraud and an idiot

>>15736910
> Lacan is objectively more influential than a retarded hack who makes only pop phil books therfore I must read him and take him seriously.

Retard.

>>15736757
I said name people dennett didn't single handedly btfo. he crushed most of those hacks in the 60s

>>15736928
Dude, just blow your fucking head off. You're a laughing stock.

>>15736955
Ahh, yes he crushed those hacks when he was still in undergrad and graduate school and they could run circles around his stupid ass even moreso back then.

Stop fucking embarrassing yourself, you stupid fucking fanboy.

>>15729085
Correct & Accurate

>>15736757
Good list
Add Frege and Donald Davidson

>>15736984
cope

>>15736983
>>15737000
>>15736955
Samefag.

>>15736984
Why didn't you list Aristotle and Hume while you're at it? Name people born after 1930 or so who actually work in philosophy of mind.

>>15736928
>who makes only pop phil books
You wish, cumlover.

>>15737003
He wanted a list of analytic and continental philosophers so I assumed he meant modern philosophers rather than every single one that worked on the philosophy of the mind.

>>15737003
William G Lycan

>>15729687
Searle's girls

>>15731777
Landlords have no incentive to maintain anyway if demand is greater than supply.

>>15729687
>For some reason he thinks every american should know the name of the 5 japanese destroyers sunk at the battle of midway, i shit you not.
ok that's based

imagine being so full of shit you get btfo by somebody as milquetoast as hofstadter