[Wittrs] Re: Eliminative Materialism
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 04 Apr 2010 00:53:19 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Fri, 4/2/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> > That is absurd. To deny there is a dualistic mind/matter
> > dichotomy is not to "accept the dualistic mind/matter
> > dichotomy".
>
> You misunderstand and misstate my position.
>
> Fearing the stigma of dualism, and wanting at any cost to deny the existence
> of the Cartesian ghost in the machine,
How do you know that "fear" is the motivation? After all, I started out
thinking Searle was right and only revised my view when I thought more deeply
about his CRA.
Moreover, I will say again: It is no argument against a view to attack its
motivation(s) rather than the merits of the case. Unless you can show that the
argument made by Dennett or me re: the failure of the CRA and possibilities of
synthetic consciousness via a computational platform is a veiled appeal to
dualism (or some such), you haven't made a case for this.
> eliminative materialists such as Dennett go too far: they in effect embrace
> the dualist mind/matter dichotomy in order to deny the ontologically
> first-person nature of mental phenomena in favor of the third-person physical
> descriptions of those same phenomena.
>
Again you are asserting. What makes you think this is to "go too far"? What is
"too far" about it, especially if it happens to be true? Would it be to "go too
far" if it were true?
Look at the text you've written above. You say "they in effect embrace the
dualist mind/matter dichotomy in order to deny the ontologically first-person
nature of mental phenomena".
Can't you see that what you're doing is asserting, not providing reasons for
believing the assertion to be true?
> They deny the basic reality of such sense common notions as intentionality,
> objectifying the subjective and defying common sense. They then wrongly label
> Searle a dualist for not doing the same. But they, *not Searle*, have
> accepted the Cartesian categories.
>
Again, Gordon, all you have is your reiterative assertion. There is no argument
here, no reason(s) for thinking the assertion is true. Note that in repeating
yourself you say things like "they deny the basic reality" but give us no
reason to think it is a denial of a basic reality or even a basic reality at
all. Then you add they "wrongly label". But THAT is YOUR claim, Gordon, not an
argument for it.
This is still just verbal foot stamping. 'I said it so it is so!'
> Searle acknowledges that we really do have beliefs, desires, semantic
> understandings of symbols, and so on, as we ordinarily understand these
> intentional states, and that we have these states intrinsically and
> independent of any associated "behaviors"
> and "dispositions".
No, Searle claims it as part of his case. But he argues for it, however
mistakenly, as when he advances the case that we have to distinguish between
ontological and causal claims!
Moreover, Dennett doesn't deny we have beliefs, desires, understanding, etc.
YOU KEEP GETTING THAT WRONG. It's as if you have some kind of mental block
about this. What Dennett does do is offer a different account of these
phenomena than Searle does and what is here in dispute is whose account is
better?
You claim Searle's is but don't argue for it. You simply repeatedly assert it
is, albeit in sometimes changing words (though often not changing by very
much). And to buttress your assertion you repeatedly make misstatements about
Dennett's views, such as that he denies the phenomena of subjectness.
> But because they fear the Cartesian ghost, eliminative materialists like
> Dennett do not admit the same.
>
Again you fall back on assertions of motive which are 1) unsubstantiated and 2)
irrelevant since the only thing that matters is the merit of their arguments.
Yet you have repeatedly failed to deal with the arguments in favor of a
Dennettian type view!
> Searle sees that no ghost exists, so he doesn't run away from the obvious.
>
> -gts
Do you really not see what you're doing here? Not a single argument in support
of your position has been offered. All you do, repeatedly, is to insist that
Searle is right while impugning the motives of his critics (like Dennett or,
presumably, me).
Nearby you accused me of misstating your position but here we have your
position, laid out by you for the nth time and IN YOUR OWN WORDS. I don't have
to restate any of it. Your own words, Gordon, not mine.
The modus operandi is REPEAT, INSIST, IMPUGN but offer not even a single
argument (a reason or set of reasons) in support of your claims here.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
