[Wittrs] Bogus Claim 3: Argument Validity Depends on Axiom Truth
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2010 13:34:56 -0400
Bogus Claim 3: Argument Validity Depends on Axiom Truth
SWM wrote:
>I am challenging the validity of that conclusion for the reason that
>the third premise is misleading BECAUSE it equivocates its meaning,
>shifting from a denial of identity (undoubtedly true) to a denial of
>causality (not undoubedtly true based on the CR and very likely false,
>if the Searlean idea of consciousness as a process-level property is
>mistaken as, I think, it is as Dennett's model adequately accounts for
>everything we mean by "consciousness").
Stuart, you are conflating argument validity and axiom truth (again).
in a deductive argument the question of validity turns on whether the
conclusion follows from the premises --- *irregardless* of the truth of
the premises.
of course, an argument that is valid is not 'out of the woods' so to
speak; for, anyone may challenge the truth of any premise.
you've latched onto the idea that there is an equivocation in the CRA in
order to conflate truth and validity. the TATA (and your challenges to
it) are concerned only with the truth of the third axiom. the CRA is
only concerned about the validity of the deduction.
in any case, you don't seem to understand what an equivocation is; and,
ironically enough, the very online sources to which you referred us
explain why there is no equivocation in the CRA.
"Equivocation is ... the misleading use of a term with more than one
meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a
particular time)". [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation]
the third premise makes two claims:
[1] syntax does not constitute semantics
[2] syntax is not sufficient for causing semantics.
the word 'syntax' is common to each claim; but, it does not shift its
meaning; so, there is no equivocation.
you are right to note that [1] is a non-identity claim and that [2] is a
non-causality claim; but, there is no equivocation because Searle is
making both claims.
you are correct to note that non-identity does not entail non-causality;
but, that doesn't create an equivocation. it just means that the TATA
will have to argue for the truth of the non-causality claim as well as
the non-identity claim.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
