[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Dualism
- From: "walto" <walterhorn@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 11:19:23 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
>
> He does say it would be better to drop the categories except that his article
> was written in response to the accusation that his position IS property
> dualism. As part of that response he asserted that there is no difference, at
> bottom, between property dualism and substance dualism. Walter, whether he
> likes me to reference his words or not, asserted that Searle wrongly
> characterized "property dualism" and that, if so, Searle WOULD be actually be
> rightly classified as a "property dualist". I added, in my response to Walter
> that, in light of my agreement with Searle's own point that property dualism
> is, finally, just another form of substance dualism, if it is dualism at all,
> then Searle would also >be a substance dualist.
Here's what I think about this:
(1) There are no property dualists of the type Searle disses in his paper.
Because (2) what he there calls "property dualists" are, as he points at the
end of his paper actually substance dualists. (They've got different "cake
layers.")
(3) On a more traditional definition of "property dualism" (i.e. causal, but
not what he calls "ontological reducibility"), he actually IS a property
dualist as am I (and, I'm guessing all the non-computationalists who aren't
Cartesians).
So, (4) traditional property dualists need not be substance dualists, and none
of them actually are--including Searle himself.
And (5) While I agree with almost all the substantial points in his paper, I
believe it makes a mess of the classifications, largely because it's so
important to him not be considered a dualist.
(6) None of these taxonomy issues make any difference to anything.
W
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
