SWM wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>SWM wrote: >>>Joseph Polanik wrote: >>>>now Searle picks the claim of constitution as the topic of interest >>>>by saying 'syntax does not constitute semantics'. consequently, we >>>>would expect to find that the meaning of constitution would be >>>>'under' the card (would be the subject of the discourse); but, the >>>>dealer (you, Stuart) moves what you call the meaning of identity so >>>>that it appears to be the subject of discussion. >>>Feel free to recast the text in a way that allows a different reading >>>and we can go over that, too. >>you already know how I read the third axiom and you have already >>acknowledged that my reading removes the equivocation you claim to see >>in the third axiom. >... though we can restate the third premise more clearly (to wring out >the ambiguity), Searle manifestly did not do so and relied, instead, on >an ambiguous way of stating what he wanted to say. 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? Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/