Bonus: Theory of mind

When this first scrolled up for me, I had just glanced at it when I was called away to do something else, and my inner ear was repeating the final panel but misremembered with the terms reversed. I thought it was making an excellent if subtle point. Can a dog do a trick without *knowing* it? (Can a human?) Does a dog really know anything, or is that just what we say as a courtesy, while meaning the dog has a habit or pattern? But then, how does lack of knowledge not prevent successful performance? We say a person knows how to ride a bicycle when we see they are able to, but chances are they could not articulate what to do — so is it the same courtesy designation?

And I think we could raise some of the same questions from the way the comic actually presents the line!

Terribly sorry, I’m afraid I don’t speak English!

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!

“Hey! That’s not Funny!” (says our translator card)

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.