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

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 28 Mar 2010 02:20:25 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
<snip>


>
> 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.
>
> Joe

You are obsessed with categories Joe. I never denied being a "property dualist" 
if all it means is that some physical events produce/have a subjective aspect. 
With Searle, I don't take that to be "property dualism" however there is a good 
argument out there that that really is ll that "property dualists" mean. If 
that is so then Searle's position IS no different from "property dualism" 
despite his disclaimers and I would have no problem with it as well. In the 
sense that is important it doesn't strike me as really being dualist because 
the only issue as far as I can see with real dualism is whether it implies that 
we need more than one ontological basic in the universe to explain the 
occurrence of minds. With Searle I think that "property dualism", even when 
claimed otherwise, often seems to be expressed in terms of ontological basics, 
i.e., that the properties of some physical events which are what we mean by 
"consciousness" are brought into the universe in some ultimately unfathomable 
way as a new entry to the universe. That strikes me as old fashioned dualism in 
a different set of clothes, that's all.

But if "property dualism" is just a claim that some physical events have 
consciousness then it's no big deal for the kind of claim I am making. It all 
has to do with what we think consciousness qua "property" means.

But let's be very clear here, again. I AM NOT ACCUSING SEARLE OF BEING AN 
IMPLICIT "PROPERTY DUALIST" AS MANY HAVE AND AS YOU HAVE INDICATED MANY HAVE. 
My claim is that Searle is implicitly an onotological dualist while denying it.

SWM

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

Other related posts: