Your argument is either unsound or invalid, but I’m not sure which. Of course, personal experience of subjective statees does hae *something to do with detecting the same state in others.
There is no detecting going on. If you’re clever (and have too much free time), you may come up with some ways that internal human experience helps to solve that problem, but noting significant. That’s why I used “little” instead of “nothing”.
There’s a slippery slope there. You start with “very little X” and slide to “entirely non-X”.
“very little” is a polite way to say “nothing”. It makes sense, especially next to the vague “has to do with” construct. So there is no slope here.
To clarify, are you disagreeing with me?
Your argument is either unsound or invalid, but I’m not sure which. Of course, personal experience of subjective statees does hae *something to do with detecting the same state in others.
Read the problem cousin_it posted again: http://lesswrong.com/lw/p7r/steelmanning_the_chinese_room_argument/dvd5
There is no detecting going on. If you’re clever (and have too much free time), you may come up with some ways that internal human experience helps to solve that problem, but noting significant. That’s why I used “little” instead of “nothing”.
But I wasn’t talking about the CR, I was talking in general.