[Wittrs] Dualism Cooties: Dennett Explicitly Accuses Searle of Implicit Cartesianism
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Mar 2010 19:46:45 -0500
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>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.
>>>As to your claim of "justifying a logical fallacy" note that it is
>>>you who have claimed there is a logical fallacy in Dennett's argument
>>no. I did not. I said a fallacious argument could be constructed from
>>Dennett's premise --- and that you are apparently reveling in that
>>fallacy.
>And I have pointed out to you that the argument you construct and
>impute to Dennett and call "fallacious" is not Dennett's argument.
Stuart,
listen carefully.
I am not attributing a fallacious argument to Dennett. I am attributing
it to you.
let me repeat that.
I am claiming that you, Stuart W Mirsky, are a perpetrating a fallacy;
specifically, the fallacy known as affirming the consequent.
how, you ask? where, you ask? well, I'll tell you.
in the context of Dennett's critique of the CRA in _Consciousness
Explained_, he makes a claim that reduces to the logical form: C -> -U;
meaning, Cartesian Dualism implies believing that there is no
Understanding in the chinese Room
you (not Dennett) then note that Searle denies that the chinese room
understands chinese; and, you conclude that Searle is a Cartesian style
substance dualist.
>You can go back and read my arguments about the CRA (they're all over
>these lists). I have always maintained that there is a PRESUMPTION of
>ontological basicness for consciousness (i.e., dualism) implicit in the
>CRA or Searle could not draw the conclusion he draws from it. When
>Dennett says it takes a "Cartesian dualist" to credit the CRA's
>conclusion as Searle presents it, he is saying the same thing!
Dennett *does not say* "it takes a 'Cartesian dualist' to credit the
CRA's conclusion". [would believe -U]
he says "Cartesian dualists would think so" [would believe -U]
the difference is that saying 'it takes a cartesian to think so' is
quite a bit like 'only a Cartesian would think so' [would believe -U]
the two statements have different logical properties.
Dennett make be the intellectual equivalent of a shyster, a street
hustler or a con artist; but, like the promoter of get rich schemes,
while he's trolling for individuals who can't or won't think clearly, he
does not himself invest any money in the scheme.
Dennett does not himself commit the fallacy I am attributing to you.
perhaps you make an honest mistake; or, perhaps you were suckered.
but, it is you who perpetrates the fallacy --- not Dennett.
are we clear on this point? I attribute the fallacy to you, Stuart W
Mirsky --- not to Daniel C Dennett.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
