[Wittrs] An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 10:25:24 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>My point is that "constitution" can be read as either a causal or an
>>>identity claim.
>>my point is that I'm not writing 'constitution' when I mean identity;
>>so, if you are reading it that way, you are seeing the bat you put in
>>the inkblot.
>My point is that this is a discussion and debate about what Searle was
>doing, ...
as I see it, the issue is whether the third axiom is true; and, we are
not limited to considering whether Searle wrote what you read him as
saying. any evidence/argument that the third axiom is or is not true
is available for consideration.
>... not what you stipulate you mean.
my commentary is correctly understood only when interpreted according to
the definitions I give you for terms in dispute.
>Thus what's at issue is what Searle means (or seems to mean) by the
>statements he incorporates into his Chinese Room argument (CRA).
the CRT is the conceptual analysis on the basis of which it is said that
the third axiom is conceptually true. the third axiom contains two
negative statements; and, each is a denial of a positive claim that
(allegedly) the CRT shows to be false.
so, the question is whether the third axiom only contains denials of
claims that are legitimately rejected; although, for the moment we are
only considering claims that may be rejected on the basis of the CRT.
>1) His claim that the premise is "conceptually true" (which is only the
>case for the denial of identity);
according to you, the claim of identity is legitimately denied on the
basis of the CRT; and, I agree. that is scenario 1.
however, I do not take your word as evidence that no other false claims
are rejectable on the basis of the CRT. I will take my own inventory.
scenario 2 considers the claim of constitution.
in this scenario, I hypothesize that the relation between syntax and
semantic is one of constitution (where 'to constitute' means 'to count
as'). hypothesizing that syntax counts as semantics leads to the
expectation that there will be semantic understanding in the CR; but,
this is not the case. hence the hypothesized relation between syntax and
semantics is rejected; and, I conclude that (given that sense of
'constitute') syntax does not constitute semantic understanding.
[NB: one can also repeat scenario 2 using some other definition of 'to
constitute'.]
now, clearly the logic by which a claim of constitution is rejected in
scenario 2 is the same as that by which a claim of identity is rejected
in scenario 1. only the content of the hypothesis is different.
so, Stuart, the question remains: what is the basis for claiming that
the CRT does not support rejecting the hypothesis that syntax
constitutes semantics?
your previous responses have been evasive and/or irrelevant; for
example, from #5562 on 2010-05-06:
>>defining 'constitutes' informally as 'counts as' and avoiding any
>>conflation of constitution with either identity or causation, do you
>>admit or deny that the hypothesis [2] is refuted?
>Since your question is built on a series of mistakes, including an
>insufficient understanding of how language works, a failure to grasp
>that this is about Searle's argument, not your stipulations, and, your
>inaccurate use of a word that you have made critical to your own claims
>("constitutes"), any reply risks inadvertently sustaining these errors.
taking inventory of what may be legitimately rejected as false on the
basis of the CRT is *prior to* the construction of the third axiom from
statements said to be true based on the CRT; meaning, that all of your
speculations concerning the interpretation of the third axiom
*presuppose* that such an inventory has been taken.
let's just say I'm reviewing your work; and, I find that your inventory
is ... incomplete.
you correctly note that a claim of identity can be rejected on the basis
of the CRT; but, you've failed to note that the claim of constitution
can be rejected by the same reason line of reasoning. hypothesizing
that a relation of constitution holds between syntax and semantics such
that syntax counts as semantics yields a prediction that is falsified.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
