[Wittrs] Re: Dualism Cooties: Ontologically Basic Ambiguity: Cartesianism

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:17:31 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The dualist implication is in the claim that the CR
> demonstrates that computational processes running on
> computers can't cause consciousness BECAUSE there is no
> understanding to be found in the CR, despite its "behavior".
> (Searle's third premise in the iteration of the CRA we have
> been considering on this list.)

Firstly, the claim that 'the CR has no understanding despite its behavior' does 
not imply dualism.

Secondly, Searle's third premise/axiom A3 has nothing to do with such 
considerations, except in your mind. A3 claims only exactly what it claims: 
that syntax doesn't give semantics. Period. 



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

Other related posts: