[Wittrs] Conceptual Analysis: Causation, Constitution and Identity
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 22:04:03 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>if the third axiom can be restated without the equivocation that you
>>>>say you see in it; then, what rational person would refuse to do so?
>>>The third premise is the key to the argument. Read without the
>>>equivocation it depends on a belief that the non-causal claim is
>>>true.
>>read without the equivocation, the third axiom makes two distinct
>>claims: the claim that syntax does not constitute understanding and
>>the claim that syntax does not cause understanding.
>And the causal claim is not established as true by any argument or
>conceptual "evidence" from the CR
before we even get to the question of whether the causal claim is or is
not supported by the CRT and/or by any conceptual analysis based on it,
we need to be clear on whether you understand that, read without
equivocation, two distinct claims are being made: the the claim that
syntax does not constitute understanding and the claim that syntax does
not cause understanding.
hint: this is a yes or no question.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
