[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:


 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.


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

Other related posts: