[Wittrs] Re: An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 23:29:40 -0000
"The issue is what does he mean by "non-constitution"? Though I can see how
"does
not constitute" can be read in a number of ways, the only way that makes sense
in this context is that it means 'is not what we mean by' (which is another way
of saying, as he does in the second part of the premise, "is not sufficient for"
-- thus explaining why he says these two things in the text of a single
premise)."
Let's try your claim out:
1. X is not sufficient for Y.
2. X is not what we mean by Y.
You are saying that 1. is another way of saying 2.! (everybody sssshhh on the
first premise and the pointless distinction between 1st and 2nd-order
properties..)
Contrapositively: (yuk, yuk..)
3. Water is sufficient for causing wetness.
4. Water is what we mean by wetness.
Anyway, if the point was to tire of the issue, you could have told me first
what you or Dennett had cookin' at the lab, rather than argue against such a
mensche as Searle. Surely that doesn't go that far. :-)
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
