Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that The classical 'syntactic engine' is not an adequate model for human thought.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.If Searle's Chinese Room argument is correct, classical computers lack understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human thought essentially involves understanding.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A model that lacks a property essential to what it models is not an adequate model.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    2 perspectives
    Reason against 1 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Gödel's incompleteness theorems demonstrate that no consistent formal system can prove all truths expressible in its own language.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Human mathematicians can recognize the truth of Gödel sentences that no syntactic engine operating within that system can derive.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.A model that cannot replicate the scope of the cognitive capacity it purports to model is inadequate as a model of that capacity.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reason against 2 of 2
    ?
    • 1.Dreyfus argued, drawing on Heidegger and Merleau-Ponty, that human cognition is grounded in embodied, pre-reflective coping that resists formalization.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Classical syntactic engines operate over discrete, context-independent symbol tokens and cannot represent the holistic, context-sensitive background of embodied know-how.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Any model that structurally excludes the constitutive substrate of a phenomenon fails to adequately model that phenomenon.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.