Chinese Room Experiment

I believe I am getting closer to understanding. Thanks for your patience. So is context part of the truth? Or is truth determined by context? Both? Neither? If I am understanding you, I believe you will answer both.

That's a good question. What is true is often a matter of agreement. It is true that 2+2=4, because every variable is clearly defined, so there can be no question of the outcome. There isn't a lot to do with context here. 2+2 will always be 4.

But if we look at a statement: "Jack was mean to Joe". The truth of that statement depends on the context. Was he mean to Joe?
Imagine we called a trial to get to the truth of it. That trial would be a negotiation, and the truth would be the outcome of the negotiation. During the negotiation the context in which the truth would be decided would be agreed upon.

I am sure others have things to add, or can express these ideas clearer.

...I suppose Jack n Joe, are sizeable finite entity´s, equally, with a finite frame of possibility´s on how they can relate...in that Set of reference, A did something to B either is true or is false, it can´t be both...

Either true or false. Can it be both? Isn't it both until we determine which it is?

Say Jack has a gun, and Joe ends up shot. What is the difference between Jack aiming for the air and missing (hitting Joe instead), and Jack aiming at Joe and hitting what he aims for. What does that do to the truth of what Jack did?

If we define “mean,” in any sort of way, then whatever definition we use limits the possibilities. And, if we define “mean,” in any sort of way, then somebody is either “mean” (by this definition) or not “mean.”
If, as the lawmakers, we decide to include “shooting people” in our definition, then whoever shot who was the “meanie.” We may even choose to make a better definition, and maybe decide that intent has something to do with being “mean.” It really doesn’t matter, whatever definition we use, limits the possibilities of "mean" as we apply it to whatever context we decide. Even if we just stick to the original definition of “mean: mean,” we limit the possibilities.
The real question is if we can accurately apply a truthful definition in order to make a truthful judgment.
I believe that while I know what being "mean" is, I am not always able to judge if a person is truly being "mean." The problem is that things aren't always as they appear.

...if what u mean is that someone may or may not had intention of shooting how does that changes the truth in any way ?
...either someone shoot someone or not, either someone intended to shoot at someone or not ! ...whatever the case, IS the case !
...what we can know has nothing to do with it...

He either intentionally shot, or accidentally shot someone. There is a pretty significant difference, though perhaps not to the person who ends up getting shot. That in turn shows another thing; that truth can be subjective.



Sure. But it is possible to do something despite intentions not to do it. What's your point?



Are you saying that what is true is true irrespective of what we can know about it?

I may or may not know that Lisbon is the capital of Portugal, although of course that does n´t make it any less true...

...if it is the case that someone shot someone else accidentally or on purpose then it is the case...

Aren't you just stating the obvious here?
If the shot was an accident it is not true that it happened intentionally...

I was under the impression that you missed the obvious...

If you think I missed something, I would be grateful if you pointed it out to me.

Shall we try to keep it civil this time? Welcome back Fil.

The same subject as been discussed in a similar thread I would recommend you to read it carefully...the distinction one is doing is between what we can or cannot know with certainty being entirely separate from the matter of fact which is inescapable...meaning that while it is debatable whether what we know is certain or not, the assumption for such debate to take place necessarily requires a reality...
(see Reality from the view point of theists)
...from the moment one starts speaking, observing, being, reality is an a priori assumption that simply cannot be dumped without dumping with it the very debate which is taking place !
Glad to be back !

Seriously, I don't see the relevance in this whole "reality" and "understanding" debate. Why should I question these matters?

...if you don´t seriously what are you doing in this thread ???

Before, I was asking a question. Now, I am not getting an answer.

...I am certainly not the one sorting out your own existencial demons, its not up to me to get the relevance for you of such matters...as they say if you dont see it then no explaining is needed...

Is that what they say? I've really never heard that one. Wow. Thanks for the enlightenment.

This is all rather banal dh. AI is impossible.

Sophists are supposed to lie around on couches waving their fingers around as they weave the winds and being waited upon by hetaera/i bringing delicious treats of one sort or another.

An AI machine could perhaps be programmed to order a pint of beer but it couldn't say whether it was gnat's piss or not.

I agree that it is "banal" (I think) but AI is not impossible. All things are possible.

...read Plato´s reminiscence if u want some enlightenment...that is, if u find it any relevant...