[Wittrs] Re: Reading the Third Axiom without the Equivocation
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 01:22:51 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
<snip>
> 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
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. But that depends on a
dualist presumption in the CR which Searle says he eschews (even while making
that very presumption). So the deeper problem with the CR and, by dint of that,
the CRA, is the question of whether the absence of understanding in the CR is
evidence for the incapacity of the CR's constituents to "cause" understanding.
If understanding is a system level feature, then the absence of understanding
in the CR is only a comment on the CR as a particular system.
It requires an assumption of the irreducibility of understanding to anything
more basic than itself to think that the failure of the CR to have
understanding is not due to the kind of system the CR is.
Why? Because if it is a problem in the system, then the issue is just to fix
the system and the CRA which is based on the CR can tell us nothing about any
other R made of the same constituents (any other system).
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
