John Searle Out at UC Berkeley

John Searle is no longer affiliated with the University of California, Berkeley. He has been stripped of his emeritus title.

This is quite a comedown since Searle's name regularly shows up on lists of the most prominent and influential philosophers writing today.

Let's review a little intellectual history. As of the late 1970s, the dominant view of consciousness, intelligence, and the mind-body relationship among professional philosophers in the Anglosphere was functionalism. There was a lot of disagreement about the details, but mostly consensus on the big picture.

The idea was that the brain was a machine that functioned more or less like a digital computer. Or, at any rate, its functions could be indefinitely approximated by a digital computer. Thus, there was nothing fundamental (just irrelevant biological history) setting the brain aside from what algorithms embodied with wires and on/off gates can or will eventually be able to do.

Alan Turing had speculated about a "Turing test" for intelligence, which turned on the ability of an embodied program to carry on a conversation that would be indistinguishable (from the PoV of a human being) from a conversation he might have with another human being. The embodied programs that could do this would be functioning intelligently, thus they would BE intelligent in a full sense of the world.

Turing's 1940s computers were good for helping the Allies hunt German U-boats, but nobody would have tried to discuss metaphysical poetry with one of them.

My point, though: the functionalist view grew in strength throughout the post-war period and was quite firmly ensconced by the late 1970s. Then came Searle, and the "Chinese room" thought experiment first published in 1980, and the subject of vigorous dispute in the following years. I won't go into the particulars of that thought experiment here -- they are easy to find it you want to pursue that point. I'll cut to the chase.

Although Searle didn't kill functionalism he did bring an end to its dominance. Presently the dominant view of mind/body questions is a form of property dualism, combined with ontological monism. This means, briefly, that philosophers now generally regard the (biological) brain and the conscious intelligent mind as the same fact in the world (monism), but they explain that this fact has at least two distinct sorts of property -- the mental and the physical. Further, there is great doubt as to whether the "Turing test" tells us anything at all about whether certain physical objects possess the mental set of properties. The new view, on behalf of which functionalism is often rejected, is called "property dualism" sometimes, and "emergentism" at other times. in other contexts.

I think the change-over from functionalism to emergentism is a healthy one (though I don't unqualifiedly endorse it). And I credit Searle for producing it. So naturally I am saddened by his downfall as the result of his apparent violation of UCal sexual harassment policies.

http://dailynous.com/2019/06/21/searle-found-violated-sexual-harassment-policies/?fbclid=IwAR07dgwGRR-IA-6XQKV5fGyK4GKQZyc7vJ0J3Kn8HF68q-1Ex4S4gwp7G3A

Will this bring back functionalism? No: fortunately it doesn't work that way.

And it wasn't ALL Searle. Another important contributor to the decline of functionalism was Frank Jackson. In his argument, too, there was a critical thought experiment: Mary's Room. Of Jackson, and of Mary, I will write another time.

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge. We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a majesti

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave. First, Plato is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability. I only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable assigns a task to philosophers

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere. At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak

Jamesian Philosophy Refreshed

Search This Blog