[Wittrs] Re: Another Muddle Worth [Really] Focusing On
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 May 2010 22:42:05 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, Budd, this is just a muddle.
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
> >
> > Lastly, I'll comment on just a bit and let it rest.
> >
> > Stuart writes:
> >
> > "You presume something about syntax (that it's not being semantics excludes
> > it from bringing semantics about) because of a certain way of thinking
> > about semantics that you share with Searle and other dualists."
> >
> >
> > So you say. But you are sadly mistaken. It's that computers don't even
> > have syntax in the relevant sense.
>
>
> Searle's later claim and more of a dud than the original.
Nice argument, dudly one!
>
>
> > Also, it is that for Searle he's just coining the word "syntactical" to
> > apply to the formality of running computer programs,
>
>
> Omigod, you mean he's making it up!!!
Not the formality of programs in the real world. Calling them syntactical was
prolly a first though, though I'm not sure.
> But then what's the point if it's all about his particular stipulations?
Notice that you're too quick to infer here. You don't have a command of
content and it leads to bad reasoning.
>(For the record, I doubt he would agree with you that he was just "coining" a
>term but I'm sure that will have no impact on your thinking here.)
Dude, I didn't only say he was coining a word. Try reading what I actually
wrote a bit more accurately:
I wrote above:
"Also, it is that for Searle he's just coining the word "syntactical" to apply
to the formality of running computer programs."
The relevant phrase is "to apply...".
What gives? Hasty bs, of course.
Here's another example of bs:
Stu writes:
"I've addressed the question of what Searle means and what he says about syntax
many times before in these discussions. But it does no good in the face of
obdurate denial. Let others judge then, and each of us for him or herself."
You argued that he was muddled so you wouldn't have to know what he means! Did
you find out what the third premise says yet? Or not?
Lastly, Peter pantsed you at Analytic and you were shown to be muddled. I am
here to tell you that you're so muddled, you don't understand that half the
time you're spelling out Searle's position, half the time you're arguing
against it, and the other half of the time you get it wrong to have your way,
and that last half all of the time..
> > and that includes his APA address which is dismissed by you so off-hand you
> > can't be bothered with a close reading of Searle..
>
>
> I would argue that I have read him very closely, more so than you have, in
> fact.
How would you know, though? Cite one passage in his APA address that is
muddled. Just one. Just one. One. Please. Is it going to involve how
programs work in the real world?
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Re: Another Muddle Worth [Really] Focusing On - gabuddabout
