[Wittrs] Dualism Cooties: Mirsky's Fallacy of Untyped Dualism, FUD

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 04:26:46 -0400

SWM wrote:

>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>SWM wrote:

>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:

>>>>the fallacy is that the phenomenological dualism that constitutes
>>>>the hard problem of consciousness research is a real dualism; but,
>>>>it isn't substance dualism

>>>Ah, a new allegation of yet another fallacy! Except, of course, that
>>>once again you misstate my argument which isn't about qualia or two
>>>kinds of objects, etc. It's about what's implied in the CRA. Look at
>>>the argument, rather than guessing or making things up!

>>no, this is the basic fallacy that I first attributed to you some
>>weeks ago.

>Let's see

see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/4522 for an earlier
example of the fallacy; although, not then known by the name "Mirsky's
FUD".


>>Searle respects the basic fact of consciousness research, there is
>>subjective experience in an otherwise objective universe. he tells us
>>that there are two ontologically basic types of phenomena, meaurable
>>and experienceable.

>>I call the fallacy in question the Fallacy of Untyped Dualism, FUD.
>>your version, Mirsky's FUD has these steps

>>1. classify any basic phenomenon, property or substance as a 'basic'.

>>2. insist that all basics are basic substances

>>3. count the substances found by this procedure. if there are two,
>>attribute substance dualism

>No, you hadn't asserted that this was the fallacy initially.

see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/4522

>Originally your claim was that it was that I had used 'if you're an X
>then your a Y' to mean 'only a Y you could be an X', while neither I
>nor Dennett had ever said that.

in a later post, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/4600 I
wrote:

"thus, when you say that premise 1 of your own argument is 'If you think
consciousness cannot be broken down to non-conscious constituents, then
you are a Cartesian Dualist', it'll be translated into something like
'Thinking that consciousness is not reducible to non-conscious
constituents implies that the thinker is a Cartesian dualist' and
symbolized as 'T -> C'."

such a statement is *always* translatable into a statement like "only a
Cartesian dualist thinks that consciousness is not reducible to
non-conscious constituents". they're logically equivalent statements.

[Peter Suber's tips for translating ordinary language into logical
notation (http://www.earlham.edu/~peters/courses/log/transtip.htm) is a
great resource. tip 34 discusses 'only' statements.]

Joe


--

Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware

@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
      http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@


==========================================

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

Other related posts: