[Wittrs] Re: Dualism Cooties: Dennett Accuses Searle

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2010 14:01:55 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> I have the posts where the passage from _Consciousness Explained_ was
> mentioned; but, if you posted any quoted material from another source, I
> haven't found it.
> in any event, in _Consciousness Explained_ Dennet does not accuse Searle
> of having dualism cooties. Dennett just claims that Searle was wrong to
> deny that the Chinese Room lacked understanding.

No, he doesn't mention "cooties" at all. Good you noticed that. Look at why he 
says it though. He is actually explicit in the sentences I quoted.

> you might repost the material you say I overlooked or help me find it by
> providing a link, a message # or the posting date; but, before you go to
> that trouble, try to remember that I'm not interested in tabloid
> philosophy. I'll need to know, not just the reference to the passage in
> which Dennett accuses Searle of having dualism cooties, but also the
> passages from Searle that are the evidence for the accusation.

Interesting that you have expanded what you "need to know". I am not nterested 
in whether you are "interested in tabloid philosophy", whatever that means. By 
the way, you should have read it by now since, for your convenience, I posted 
it nearby in another post responding to Budd. Go read it there. (By the way, I 
also posted your demand which prompted my reply and in which there was no 
mention of any additional stuff you felt you "need to know".)

The text is self-explanatory and you can go read it for yourself. It is quite 
clear that it is Dennett's response to Searle's CRA so you don't need text from 
Searle unless you think Dennett has misstated the CRA as put forward by Searle 
in which case the onus is on you to demonstrate he has done that.

> I'm not
> just going to accept Dennett's word that Searle has dualism cooties.

This isn't about Dennett's word though you asked me to demonstrate that that 
was Dennett's position which I have. This is about the argument, as in the 
merits of. It doesn't matter to me what Dennett's position is. I merely 
referenced it in passing and to credit him since he said it before I did. What 
is important is the point, not its genesis.

> I'll conduct my own review of the evidence.
> Joe

That's what we should all do. I suggest you open the book to the pages I cited 
and read.


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

Other related posts: