[Wittrs] Focusing on the Refusal to Focus
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 07:24:02 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>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.
>You are again confusing the formal structure with the argument itself
>(with the semantics plugged in). The purpose of the structure is to
>enable clarity in going from point to point, driven by the actual
>meanings. The CRA is not an empty formal structure though it is
>arranged formally (and thus follows that structure). The CRA is an
>actual argument, presented in the formal structure. That it would be
>true if its premises were true is irrelevant to whether it is true!
your point (if you have a point) is better stated in reverse: the actual
truth of an argument's premises is irrelevant to the question of
validity.
that's precisely why the issue is whether the third premise is true.
>>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]
>We are arguing here about Searle's CRA case against the
>computationalist thesis of mind
my argument is that the CRA is formally valid and that its axioms are
true.
>The problem for your argument, Joe, is you haven't falsified the claim
>for anything more than the CR system.
thank you, Stuart, for recognizing the fine quality workmanship that
went into reformulating the CRT in a way that has no effect on the
outcome *except* for the reducing the possibilities for conflation and
equivocation.
the reformulated CRT still concerns understanding as Searle defines it
and the CR as Searle specked it.
however, I specifically defined the hypothesis evaluation procedure to
consider claims of identity in the language of identity, claims of
constitution in the language of constitution and claims of causality in
the language of causality.
that should have no effect *except* insofar as it reduces the
possibilities for conflation and equivocation.
>Once the possibility that subjectivity is a system level phenomenon,
>instead of one that is associated with one of the system's
>constituents, is recognized, the idea that the constituents of the CR
>can't produce subjectivity, merely because they don't in the CR,
>collapses.
you still need to give us a coherent explanation for
[1] why the CRT/CRA or the third axiom is required to take a stand on
whether subjectivity is a system level phenomenon or a phenomenon
generated by a system component.
[2] why it presupposes one of these possibilities instead of the other.
[3] why the possibility that you say is presupposed is more Cartesian
than the other.
>>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.
>No, that is found in the logical way that Searle proceeds. But it is
>possible that there are other, perfectly empirical, reasons for why a
>system made up of constituents like those found in the CR can't
>succeed. You keep missing this aspect of what I have been saying.
you seem to be missing a point that philosophers have understood for
thousands of years. if you say that Y is the only alternative to X, I
can contest your claim by showing that there are other alternatives.
that's what I'm doing.
the alternative in question is the actual CRT conducted and its result
described without the equivocation that you say you see.
try to focus on that fact.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
