[Wittrs] Dualism Cooties: Is Stuart a Property Dualist?

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 27 Mar 2010 13:59:53 -0400

SWM wrote:

>Gordon Swobe wrote:

>>SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:

>>>The dualist implication is in the claim that the CR demonstrates
>>>that computational processes running on computers can't cause
>>>consciousness BECAUSE there is no understanding to be found in the
>>>CR, despite its "behavior". (Searle's third premise in the iteration
>>>of the CRA we have been considering on this list.)

>>Secondly, Searle's third premise/axiom A3 has nothing to do with such
>>considerations, except in your mind. A3 claims only exactly what it
>>claims: that syntax doesn't give semantics. Period.

>And it only claims it. Period. The CR presumably demonstrates it (or
>why bother to have a CR and an argument derived from it?) and everyone
>is then supposed to say it's obvious because we can see that in the
>case of the CR. Except it's NOT obvious once you get over the idea that
>understanding can only be conceived as a process property. If it's a
>system property, then there is no reason the processes in the system
>cannot produce understanding in combination in which case syntax can
>cause semantics and the premise is wrong! At the very least, the fact
>that the premise is not self-evidently true anymore vitiates the
>conclusions of the CRA. And the only reason to think otherwise is if
>you think consciousness is ontologically basic.

okay so physical objects have process properties and system properties;
and, only the latter can explain under explain/constitute understanding.

that claim qualifies as property dualism according to the criteria for
EPD that I've previously posted.

therefore, Stuart, you are a property dualist.



Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware



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

Other related posts: