SWM wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>thank you. I've found your post from 2010-01-31 in which you quote >>some material including the next paragraph and then provide a >>parenthetical comment: >>Dennett: "Here is how the misdirection occurs. We see clearly enough >>that if there were understanding in such a giant system, it would not >>be Searle's understanding (since he is just a cog in the machiery, >>oblivious to the context of what he is doing). We also see clearly >>that there is nothing remotely like genuine understanding in any hunk >>of programming small enough to imagine readily -- whatever it is, it's >>just a mindless routine for transforming symbol strings into other >>symbol strings according to some mechanical or syntactical recipe. >>Then comes the suppressed premise: Surely more of the same, no matter >>how much more, would never add up to genuine understanding. But why >>should anyone think this is true? Cartesian dualists would think so, >>because they think that even human brains are unable to accomplish >>understanding all by themselves . . ." >>Stuart: [Recall my point that Searle's CRA hinges on an implicit case >>of substance dualism.] >>but, given your insistence that Dennett is implicitly accusing Searle >>of substance dualism, >No, explicitly. He says it, although it takes him a while to make the >point. first it's implicit; but, now it's explicit? where? the only reference to Cartesian dualism in the passage from _Consciousness Explained_ is in the last sentence from the quoted passage; and, it's irrelevant unless you're trying to justify a logical fallacy. so would you quote the passage in which you claim that Dennett is explicitly/implicitly accusing Searle of explicit/implicit of substance dualism. Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/