[Wittrs] Dualism Cooties: Ontologically Basic Ambiguity: Cartesianism
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 03:20:06 -0400
SWM wrote:
>... my view is that Searle's position on consciousness implies dualism
>of the Cartesian variety (but not that he is a subscriber to Descarte's
>complete philosophical doctrine[s]).
as usual, there are unanswered questions:
what, specifically, is the position that Searle explicitly takes that
tells you that Searle is implicitly (not explicitly) a Cartesian
dualist? is it the claim that understanding of syntax does not produce
semantic understanding? is it the claim that the causal reduction of
consciousness to the brain is not also an ontological reduction? if it
is something else, then what is it?
what does 'implies' mean today? are you saying that Searle's position
presumes Cartesian dualism; or, are you saying that Cartesian dualism
follows (can be deduced) from Searle's position?
and what exactly does 'Cartesian dualism' mean when you use that phrase?
does it mean something other than interactive substance dualist?
>NO ONE, NOT DENNETT AND NOT ME, is saying that Searle subscribes to
>all the philosophical doctrines of Descartes.
I understand that. I'm just trying to understand how much or how little
of Descartes' philosophy of interactive substance dualism a person would
have to accept in order to be classified *by you* as a Cartesian
dualist.
does a person have to be a substance dualist to be a Cartesian dualist
as you use the phrase, "Cartesian dualist"?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
