And since “reducing things to constituent parts” is involved with all of reasoning, it indicates a gross inability to reason.
I mean really, who only refers to the universe as a seamless whole? And who has produced anything of note by refusing to refer to distinct and separate things?
Searle would be a good example of the difference between being bright, and being intelligent. He is clever, but not smart.
I don’t think my point is really that unclear though. Consider: Rube Goldberg-like ‘solutions’ to problems require cleverness, but are so inefficient and overly complex that only a very foolish person would think that their design and construction would be a good idea. Seriously making such a design requires lots of raw brainpower and a lack of effective judgment.
I think the idea behind Rube Goldberg devices is to have fun, not to use them regularly to actually solve problems. Only in movies does anyone have a residence or business rigged up Rube Goldberg Style.
A person who created such a design would need to be very clever, yet very foolish.
I’m confused. Are you ignoring the faction that would be clever enough to create these designs and would do so for fun; calling such people foolish for having this hobby; or assuming that they don’t exist?
People who design and build Rube Goldbergs just for fun are (if successful) necessarily clever; very, very few of them believe that the resulting machines are actually useful in any meaningful sense, I think, so there would be no grounds for considering them foolish.
When you fully explain your bright/intelligent distinction you should also include a list of synonyms and antonyms for each. It seems like you’re using “foolish” as an antonym for one and not the other, “brainy” as a synonym for one and not the other, etc.
IDWYC but agree that Searle’s emergence seems like a pointer to confusion and reveals a really basic failure to understand reductionism.
And since “reducing things to constituent parts” is involved with all of reasoning, it indicates a gross inability to reason.
I mean really, who only refers to the universe as a seamless whole? And who has produced anything of note by refusing to refer to distinct and separate things?
Searle would be a good example of the difference between being bright, and being intelligent. He is clever, but not smart.
You do plan to elaborate on your bright/intelligent distinction eventually, right? Until then, this is just you being unclear.
Yes, I do.
I don’t think my point is really that unclear though. Consider: Rube Goldberg-like ‘solutions’ to problems require cleverness, but are so inefficient and overly complex that only a very foolish person would think that their design and construction would be a good idea. Seriously making such a design requires lots of raw brainpower and a lack of effective judgment.
I think the idea behind Rube Goldberg devices is to have fun, not to use them regularly to actually solve problems. Only in movies does anyone have a residence or business rigged up Rube Goldberg Style.
Certainly, but someone who actually thought they’d be useful would need to be foolish.
A person who created such a design would need to be very clever, yet very foolish.
Similarly, Searle must be pretty brainy, but his arguments make so little sense that they’re absurd.
I’m confused. Are you ignoring the faction that would be clever enough to create these designs and would do so for fun; calling such people foolish for having this hobby; or assuming that they don’t exist?
I just didn’t address them.
People who design and build Rube Goldbergs just for fun are (if successful) necessarily clever; very, very few of them believe that the resulting machines are actually useful in any meaningful sense, I think, so there would be no grounds for considering them foolish.
When you fully explain your bright/intelligent distinction you should also include a list of synonyms and antonyms for each. It seems like you’re using “foolish” as an antonym for one and not the other, “brainy” as a synonym for one and not the other, etc.