[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 



Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: