[Wittrs] Re: Dennett's paradigm shiftiness--Reply to Stuart

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2010 02:10:14 -0000

I know I shouldn't be doing this again, but . . .

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> Sorry you don't understand that functionalism was originally thought to 
> displace type-type physicalism.

This has nothing to do what anything was "originally thought" to do. This isn't 
about some notion of what Searle or anyone else WANTED to do. It's not about a 
claim that someone somewhere put forward and called some particular thesis 
"functionalism" or "type-type physicalism." This isn't about labels, Budd. It's 
about ideas, ideas that have been put on the table and spelled out without 
harking back to what someone somewhere is said to have meant or thought or 
wanted, etc.

> 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.

We are arguing about the strength of Searle's CRA therefore your answer cannot 
be just to declare that it was "devastating"! That is what's in dispute! This 
is why you and I can make no progress here or elsewhere. You are missing the 
whole point of this discussion.

> 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..

I was obliged to snip, alas. But I rely on Sean's assurance that the full text 
of what you had written is available in the tree to interested parties.

> 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."

Arguing by name dropping is no better than arguing by declaration or by citing 

> 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.

Another declaration!

> My contention is that you waffle between physicalist and functional ideas as 
> to exactly what PP is.

My contention is that you habitually miss the points I am making.

> 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.

Why bother? Could anything I say to you have any impact? I doubt it.

> 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

If you only occasionally engaged me on what I actually say or demonstrated some 
grasp of some of the points I have been making I would count this worthwhile. 
But it's really a lost cause, isn't it? I told you, I can live with the 
knowledge that you remain wedded to Searle's claims even though you don't 
demonstrate that you really understand them. And you are free to say the same 
of me (which you do anyway). Let's just leave it at that, eh?


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

Other related posts: