SWM wrote: >By the way, I do not accuse Searle of "property dualism" as you state >above. I accuse him of being implicitly dualist (in the deep sense, the >sense you insist on calling, somewhat archaically, "substance >dualism"). But I am fully aware that he denies being dualist in that or >any sense. That is why my claim is that he is "implicitly dualist." thank you for clearing that up. there is some support in the literature for classifying Searle as a latent property dualist. Chalmers, for example, thinks that "Searle [Rediscovery of the Mind] admits the logical possibility of zombie, and in fact holds that there is merely a causal connection between the microphysical and conscious experience, so he is perhaps best seen as a property dualist." [The Conscious Mind. p.376] however, this clarification does no more than heighten the absurd irony of the present thread. you purport to the able to detect latent substance dualism in Searle when it is so well hidden that no one else (AFAIK) has been able to detect it. on the other hand, you are blind to the overt dualistm of the the von Neumann Interpretation. Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/