[Wittrs] Focusing on the Refusal to Focus
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 11 May 2010 21:19:39 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>if, for some reason that remains obscure, we limited arguments in
>>favor of the third axiom to those that you admit are based on the CRT;
>>then, even assuming that you successfully contest all those arguments
>>you are willing to consider, the most that you would be able to claim
>>is that the CRA is not supported by any of the arguments you are
>>willing to consider. you would not be entitled to claim that the CRA
>>fails.
>>you can't have it both ways.
>If the CRA does not support its conclusions, if they don't follow from
>its premises, then the CRA fails. That's what it means for an argument
>to fail.
we've already know that the conclusion of the CRA does does in fact
follow from its premises. I presented a formal proof and you conceeded
that the conclusion would be true if the premises are true --- which is
precisely what you'd expect from a formally valid argument.
the focus then shifts (precisely as you say) to the question: "The issue
is on what basis do we take the third premise to be true?". [2010-05-03
- 09:52 AM]
>Whether there is some other argument for the same conclusions that
>doesn't fail (because it does logically demonstrate its conclusions) is
>a different question.
yes. each such argument *is* a different question; and, each is a
relevant question.
your argument in its various forms has always incorporated at least the
following two claims:
that the CRT doesn't show that syntactic operations can't cause
subjectivity and subjective experience to emerge as a system property.
that the *only* way to make the CRT show that syntactic operations can't
cause subjectivity and subjective experience is to presuppose something
you claim is dualism.
*any* way of showing that the CRT makes and supports a claim of
non-causality refutes both of these claims you are making; so, it is
foolish of you to expect anyone to abandon any such counter argument
just because you say Searle never mentioned it; particularly since, at
the moment, it is *you* who is unwilling or unable to explain why the
hypothesis of a causal relation between syntax and subjectivity can't be
rejected when it is falsified.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
