[Wittrs] Re: Dualism Cooties: Mirsky's Fallacy of Untyped Dualism, FUD
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:45:54 -0000
I'm going to be tied up today so responses will have to be shorter than usual.
Still . . .
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
> SWM wrote:
<snip>
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".
>
>
My point was you started out claiming one thing, then shifted to another.
> >>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
>
First you said it had to do with an "only" claim and then you said it had to do
with a claim that collapsed all "basics" into "basic substances"
I never asserted "only" and I don't assert the collapse you allege.
> >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
>
It doesn't matter what the conventions of logical notation are. I used ordinary
English in my statements which is far more nuanced, etc., etc. If I had meant
to say "only" I would have said it. English is equipped for that. If I meant to
express the logical claim you assert that I was expressing through your
translation of my statement into logical notation, I would have done that
translation myself. What this shows is that you misread and mistranslated what
I was saying and then believed you had the right to hold me to your
misreading/mistranslation. That's still a strawman argument and it's still
simply absurd.
If I get more time today, I will address your comments in more detail. If not,
then hopefully by the weekend.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
