[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shift.
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Feb 2010 21:00:36 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@> wrote:
>
> > ... shoot. I let that message go through even though i didn't realize
> > that it left too much of the other message below the signature. My fault on
> > that one.
> >
> > SW
>
> Oh, don't worry too much Sean. I won't be responding to it because it is, as
> usual, just a lot of generalities, jargon and accusation with little or
> nothing that is substantive (and which hasn't already been addressed in great
> detail by me before). So it'll die on the vine unless others here decide to
> respond to it, in which case you can enforce the snipping rule then! -- SWM
So you're not up for even a little challenge to what I think are readings of
Searle which are uninformed by his writings? That's just not playing this
internet game is it? Or is it to beat a dead horse? What horse? and on.
Indeed, you should have a condensed paper ready at hand given all the time you
have spent making sure you know what Searle is saying first hand. You could
even refer to it after having posted it. And I would read it. If you've a
favorite post number you wish to direct me to, I'll appreciate it, Stuart.
I recall trying to get you to read the target article six years ago and I
distinctly recall you responding in at least two ways:
1. No need to consult the target article for motivations of the premises since
he lists his summary CRA independently (elsewhere) than the target article.
[and then we went on and on about justifying the premises! And then I had to
repeat that reading the target article might just be what the doctor ordered]
2. No need to read Searle further once one has found the flaws you claimed to
have found.
[and then I went on to question your ability to read English, not to mention
wanting you to read his later APA address containing his (newer) reasons why
strong AI is incoherent and not to be taken seriously enough to argue
with--much like arguing for metaphysical realism is difficult because there
seem to be no coherent formulations of the position which is supposed to
contradict it; like Putnam thought to come up with an argument against
metaphysical realism only to put forth a bad one (Cf. _The Many Faces of
Realism_)]
Anyway, I never took your criticisms seriously because you were putting words
in Searle's mouth as a result of not having read him carefully, or so I still
think.
I thought I was being a perfect sport for continuing my side of the argument.
I'll understand though if you don't want to get super direct and cherry pick
one issue at a time. It can be irritatingly difficult.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
