On 7/22/2025 11:54 AM, Mr Flibble wrote:
On Tue, 22 Jul 2025 12:58:49 +0200, Fred. Zwarts wrote:
;-)
Suppose Olcott is visiting a restaurant with many other people. One of
them, by accident, drops some beetroot on Olcott's back. Now we can ask
all people: "Does Olcott have a red stain on his back?". They will all
say: "yes he has a red stain on his back.". But what happens when we
would ask it Olcott himself:
I think he will say:
"That all others see a red stain on may back is not the correct measure.
I cannot report on what other people see. I must report on my own back,
other people are not reporting on there own back, so we are not
reporting on the same back. What other people see is not the input for
my eyes. The correct measure for a red stain is that my eyes are
reachable for the red light. Since the light from my back cannot
possible reach my eyes, the input for my eyes does not specify a red
stain. Therefore, I have 100% proven that the input specifies that there
is no red stain on my back. When somebody says that I am wrong to claim
that there is no red stain on my back, he is a liar and does not pay
enough attention to what I say."
;-)
Some analogies are worse than others; this one is particularly bad.
Would it improve if we had a child with a "light touch" copy a Halting
Theorem proof on the back of his t-shirt? Since we can suppose that the
child, like PO, has no understanding of the meaning of the marks on the
back of the t-shirt, we can bump up this metaphor to include certain
aspects of the Chinese Room conundrum!
--
Jeff Barnett
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)