[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shiftiness--Reply to Stuart
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:47:41 -0000
Sorry you don't understand that functionalism was originally thought to
displace type-type physicalism.
Cutting to the chase, you sometimes describe PP as if it was a case of
type-type physicalism.
But it is just another case of functionalism, specifically computational
functionalism subject to the devastating critique ushered in by Searle's CR.
Yeah, I said it.
But look at what you said too!!!! :-)
I have to snip now as per the rules.
Notice that Stuart's reply wasted time saying exactly why I am confused, er,
not....
I may be mistaken, though, even if not confused..
Speaking of being at see, we are on to you guys and your failed concept
similarity. Enough. Time to bury the dead Parrot, as Fodor writes in his
paper, "Having Concepts: A Brief Refutation of the Twentieth Century."
Perhaps there's just no accounting for mental events on the bare-bones notion
of concept similarity. One has to have concepts and functional systems are
hopeless if understood.
My contention is that you waffle between physicalist and functional ideas as to
exactly what PP is.
I'm prpared to argue that you waffle. I'm not prepared to learn that you know
what you are talking about GIVEN what you writer. You can correct yourself at
any time, however.
Perhaps the game is to constantly get things wrong and not to care. That's a
bit irritating but I had to test the thesis even if it took a loooooong time.
Cheers,
Budd
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> This is hopeless, Budd. Your comments are so confused I don't know where to
> begin in helping to show you how to unpack them. Moreover, the evidence, here
> and elsewhere, is that it wouldn't do any good anyway because, whatever I say
> will roll off your brain like water off a duck's back. I suggest we simply
> agree to be in disagreement about Searle. You think he is the cat's meow on
> the matter under discussion and I think he is all at sea. I can live with our
> being in fundamental and irreconcilable disagreement on this business. I
> don't need to convince you. -- SWM
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
> >
> <snip>
>
>
>
> =========================================
> Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
