[Wittrs] Dualism Cooties: Ontologically Basic Ambiguity: The Problem

  • From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:41:24 -0400

SWM wrote:

>The fact that there is subjectness and objects, the fact that there is
>awareness and that of which we are aware, does not mean that we have
>two ontological basics.

I agree that the fact that, besides physical objects such as mountains
and mole hills, there is the experiencing I and its experiences does not
necessarily mean that there are two ontologically basic *substances*.

would you agree that Searl only recognizes one ontologically basic
substance? if so, then the issue at hand can be stated very simply,

[1] you classify Searle as a Cartesian dualist despite acknowledging
that he recognizes only one ontologically basic substance.

[2] a Cartesian dualist is an interactive substance dualist; meaning,
that the human individual is composed of a mortal physical body and an
immortal non-physical soul which interact.

[3] no one on any of the mailing lists on which you have peddled this
nonsense has ever been able to understand how the CRA exposes the
presumption of or demonstrate a conclusion that there is an immortal
non-physical soul within the human individual.

do you even understand the problem?



Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware



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

Other related posts: