[Wittrs] Re: Searle's Revised Argument -- We're not in Syntax anymore!
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 27 May 2010 21:54:15 -0000
I asserted, among a whole lot of other things, that Stuart strained credibility.
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> Nope.
And that's all he wrote. Yep. And the above response is a case in point.
I'm wondering if Stuart's game is designed to show the futility of arguing with
a shoe? If so, then it is not informative.
OTOH, I've been informative to the point of describing Searle's reasons for his
position and also the reasons which lead Stuart to go dense when interpreting
Searle to the point of sharing his position while in deep denial.
Again, Stuart strains credibility by:
1. Not being able to read Searle coherently.
2. Sharing Searle's position without realizing or acknowledging it.
2. has led me to think that Stuart is either really benighted or lying in the
form of not being benighted but only appearing to do be do be do.
I will acknowledge that I am benighted to the following degree: I thought I
could make Stuart more understanding of Searle or at least more honest. I have
been able to do neither, appearances being what counts.
And sometimes appearances are all one gets. So I failed so far.
Which irritates me because when I teach drums there is just no ambiguity after
I'm done explaining something.
A concern in conscious studies is the explanatory gap. I think that some go
from this problem to Wittgensteinian criteriology of mind too swiftly without
realizing that....
Maybe one day I can finish that sentence.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
