[Wittrs] Re: Dancing Dualisms: Searlean Moves and Cartesian Moves
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 18:13:43 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 3/26/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> I feel inclined to defend Searle against charges of
>> explicit or implicit dualism, whether they come from you or
>> from Dennett, but again I do not take seriously any
>> definition of dualism that does not entail non-physical
>> properties or substances.
>
>
> What do you mean by "non-physical"?
By "non-physical", I mean something like "not constituted of matter or energy
as mainstream scientists would understood those terms."
If you/Dennett want me to believe that Searle's CRA requires acceptance of
dualism then you need to convince me that it requires acceptance of something
non-physical.
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
