[Wittrs] An Issue Worth Focusing On
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 06 May 2010 06:48:56 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>let's see if you've made relevant points, shall we?
>>>>[1] the hypothesis that syntactic operations are identical to
>>>>understanding is refuted by the absence of understanding in the CR
>>>>despite the presence of syntactic operations in the CR.
>I admit that the hypothesis you state above, that "'syntactical
>operations are identical to understanding' is refuted by the absence of
>understanding in the CR" is true.
okay, then. let's move on.
>>>>[2] the hypothesis that syntactic operations constitute
>>>>understanding is refuted by the absence of understanding in the CR
>>>>despite the presence of syntactic operations in the CR.
>>>This hinges on the use of "constitutes" which can be taken in a
>>>causal sense or in an identity sense.
>>focus, Stuart. we're not writing a dissertation on the conflationary
>>possibilities of ordinary english;
>"We" are expressing a claim in ordinary English above.
indeed, I am expressing myself in ordinary english; but, that doesn't
mean that I'm using my language as imprecisely as it might be used by
someone slobbering out an opinion as Ludwig's Ordinary Language Sport
Utility Bar.
so, unless you are claiming that sloppy language is mandatory for anyone
using ordinary english words to express a thought, listen carefully
because I'm telling you once again: identity, constitution and causality
are three distinct concepts. Furthermore,
I use 'identity' to make an identity claim.
I use 'constitution' to make a constitution claim.
I use 'causality' to make a causality claim.
>As you know (or should know) I have said numerous times that
>"constitution" can be read as asserting identity or causality (and have
>given dictionary definitions showing both uses).
and I'm telling you yet again: I'm not doing that.
you may crank out verbiage like someone who took linguistic philosophy
lessons from a street hustler running a game of three card monte; but, I
do not.
I use 'constitution' to make a constitution claim.
>>so, let's just informally define 'constitutes' as 'counts as'.
>Then you are defining it as identity rather than as causal.
well, thank you for admitting that I'm not defining 'constitution' as
'causation' (in the narrow sense); but, you are still conflating
constitution and identity.
identicality is a two way street. the morning star is the evening star
and the evening star is the morning star.
consitution can be a one way street. electrical phenomena constitutes
lightning; but, lightning does not constitute electrical phenomena.
there is still a class/subclass relation there.
listen carefully, Stuart. to avoid assigning the meaning of one word to
the other word; and, to avoid conflating their meanings,
I use 'identity' to make an identity claim.
I use 'constitution' to make a constitution claim.
now, Stuart, having clarified what is meant by what is said, let's try
this again.
defining 'constitutes' informally as 'counts as' and avoiding any
conflation of constitution with either identity or causation, do you
admit or deny that the hypothesis [2] is refuted?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
