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

  • From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 13:30:45 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:

> SWM wrote:
>
>  >Whatever underlies what we encounter in our experience and what we
>  >encounter in our experience is very broad. So the question is whether
>  >some of what we encounter is traceable to one source and other things
>  >we encounter are traceable to another.
>
> how many ontologically basic sources does Searle posit, in your opinion?
>


Searle doesn't speak in terms of ontological basics. However his concept of 
mind, as revealed in the CRA, implies that mind is ontologically distinct from 
whatever is ontologically basic to the physics of the universe. Therefore it 
implies at least one other ontological basic. Since Searle doesn't explicitly 
claim this however, or agree to it, and, since he seems to stray from it in his 
discussion of brains causing consciousness, he is in self-contradiction.


>  >Or whether everything can be explained in terms of the same source. Do
>  >we need to posit one or two sources for the full range of phenomena
>  >(including minds) that we encounter in the universe?
>
> how many ontologically basic sources does Searle posit, in your opinion?
>
> Joe
>


Searle doesn't speak in terms of ontological basics. However his concept of 
mind, as revealed in the CRA, implies that mind is ontologically distinct from 
whatever is ontologically basic to the physics of the universe. Therefore it 
implies at least one other ontological basic. Since Searle doesn't explicitly 
claim this however, or agree to it, and, since he seems to stray from it in his 
discussion of brains causing consciousness, he is in self-contradiction.


SWM

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

Other related posts: