Think of this as a followup to our thread from last December about Searle’s Chinese Room problem. However, the cartoon there came from the Daily Nous site, where everything is supposed to be philosophy (or usually institutional news); this one graced the pages of GoComics.
How lucky that the randomly-generated sounds coming from Man2 actually constituted correct directions to the Post Office!
But how unlucky, as Man1 actually wanted to go to the metro!
the lower one of this pair arrived in the mail and made me say, first, “Huh? What? IDU!” — but then “Maybe this is from an arc and the context will help”. The immediately previous comic did seem to go with today’s, and is printed below, as the upper of the pair. (The Girls are drowning in “history”, so maybe the recent mini-thread on time-travel — discussed here — would also fit as relevant, but it didn’t seem a strong case.)
Well, these do seem linked but different. What can provide a rescue from history? Technology maybe? No, says the top entry. Then maybe philosophy? Dopes the lower entry also say No to that suggestion? Or does it offer some hope? And how the heck can intoning Derrida’s name as parts of other words invoke any magic?
P.S. Those with behind-the-scenes interest can take a look at this excerpt from the tree of categories:
In case you would like either an introduction or a refresher on Searle’s Chinese Room argument, that link to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy may be of interest.
That’s what this cartoon on Daily Nous recently seems to be about:
Okay, is it funny, to general audience? Is it funny, to an expert? Is it a good response to the Chinese Room Argument? Is trying to ridicule Searle what finished off Derrida?
P.S. It’s natural for comics fans to try illuminating philosophical point by consulting Existential Comics. But the only archive entry I can find there for Searle does not touch on the Chinese Room Argument at all.
(Not a CIDU) Enjoy a chuckle.
I only recently learned there is a newfangled fabric called “modal”, popular for linens[*] and underwear; which mostly explains the modal-logic joke for me. But some of the rest of these are still puzzling.
[*] No, linens are not presumptively made from linen. Though they can be. Oy!
Probably a bit too technical (though not hard to look up). But the point of interest is in how it uses the tools of “photographic meme” but in a drawing. Would the same joke (about “getting cancelled”) work in a direct cartoon format?
Also disturbing is that apparently they say ‘phi’ as a rhyme for ‘be’.
Comics I Don't Understand 