[Wittrs] Aaaagh! Re: No Effing Way--Again
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 16:39:27 -0000
That should have read:
"BECAUSE NON-IDENTITY DOES NOT IMPLY NON-CAUSALITY."
Not:
"BECAUSE NON-CAUSALITY DOES NOT IMPLY NON-IDENTITY."
Normally I wouldn't rush to fix this kind of mistake, relying on readers to fix
it themselves base don the context, but given the penchant of some here to
pounce on inadvertent errors like this, I figure it's better to go on the
record right away.
SWM
<snip>
> The problem is that read THAT WAY it DOESN'T fulfill the second criterion,
> i.e., it doesn't imply a non-causal conclusion (which is what the CRA
> purports to give us) BECAUSE NON-CAUSALITY DOES NOT IMPLY NON-IDENTITY.
>
> And so we must read the text of the third premise another way, i.e., in a way
> that DOES imply the non-causal conclusion. That is we need the claim "does
> not constitute and is not sufficient for" to mean does not and cannot cause
> what we all agree brains cause!
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Aaaagh! Re: No Effing Way--Again - SWM
