[Wittrs] Stuart's Allegation of Dualism is SAD but Irrelevant
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 05:52:03 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>The issue is on what basis do we take the third premise to be true? Do
>we have some scientific results to interpret? Actually, no. Do we have
>a conceptual claim? You bet. The reason to believe in the truth of the
>third premise hinges on a certain conception of understanding (and
>consciousness). Referring to the truth or falsity of the third premise,
>absent the reason for taking it to be true or false, simply misses the
>whole point.
I can readily agree that we should consider the rationale for taking the
third premise as true or false; but, I expect a rational connection
between the terms of the third premise and the reason(s) offered for
taking the third premise to be true.
>Again, the third premise is either true or false (or nonsense, of
>course) and our reason for thinking it one or the other is the issue,
>not whether any particular proponent of its truth (or falsity) has a
>particular mindset.
that's why I am taking inventory of what may be taken as true based on
the CRT. allegations that someone advocating that the third axiom is
true (or false) has a dualistic mindset simply aren't relevant.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
