[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Dualism
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 29 Aug 2010 02:02:49 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
>
> > responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6234
>
>
> > SWM:
> > But that is what is needed -- a definition of the terms. If you
> > only want to hazard a definition in terms of the conceptualization
> > that relies upon the defined thing, then isn't it an exercise
> > of circularity?
>
> If you have ever try reading through a dictionary, and following
> referred to words, you would see that reliance on definitions is
> necessarily an exercise in circularity.
>
My reference was not to the practice of defining but to that of reasoning. A
line of reasoning that starts with its conclusion as an assumption is, finally,
circular. While there are some who will argue that all successful deductive
syllogisms are finally circular, I would point out that it is not THAT kind of
circularity that is at issue since deductive arguments may well be said to
trade on making explicit what is already implicit in their premises.
On the other hand, if it is already explicit, then there is no point in
proceeding with the argument.
I was making the point that if you define consciousness as needing
intentionality and intentionality as what's needed to have consciousness you
haven't taken us to any new understanding of the issue or given us a conclusion
that was not already evident. For the argument to be of use, we need to learn
something we didn't explicitly know before.
So what is "intentionality" on your view since, depending on what it is, we may
come to different conclusions on 1) whether it is needed to have consciousness
and 2) whether it is replicable by some mechanism that is not organic, a living
entity, a naturally occurring homeostatic system, etc.
> Wittgenstein, with his "meaning is use", at least gave us an
> alternative.
>
>
> > SWM:
> > What is needed, therefore, is an analysis that determines if
> > something critical has been left out, not merely the pronouncement
> > that it cannot be done.
>
> Everything critical has been left out. And that's not just Dennett's
> account. When you boil it all down, philosophy provides an elaborate
> sophisticated account of nothing at all. It evades every important
> issue.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
>
What "critical" elements are left out and can you say why these ARE critical?
Certainly some of us here (me for instance) don't agree with your claim that
"everything critical has been left out" or that philosophy "evades every
important issue" re: these questions of cosnciousness.
Now it may be that you don't count my opinion as an important counterweight to
your own, but surely you see that just to make such assertions without backing
them up is really not to do anything more than declare that you are right and
others aren't!
Now, of course, you can do that. Anyone can. But such a move simply shuts the
door on discussion. And yet you have raised issues here as if you wished to
discuss them. So either I am misreading you, and you really don't want to
discuss what I thought you were here to discuss, or you are simply unwilling to
take the necessary steps to place your positions on the table for open and
frank consideration.
The next move, Neil, is up to you. I don't accept either of the claims you have
just made above so you can either make the case for them or walk away.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
