[Wittrs] Re: Further Thoughts on Dennett, Searle and the Conundrum of Dualism

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 10:58:36 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Mon, 3/29/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> The thought experiment.... supposedly shows something that, 
> upon consideration, we would all agree is the case. What it
> purportedly shows is two things:
> 1) The CR has no understanding (a feature of a conscious
> mind); and
> 2) That because it has no understanding, its constituent
> parts cannot produce understanding.

No, your item 2) represents just stage 1 of your attempt to misconstrue the CRA.

According to Searle's *actual* formal argument, the CRT of the CRA shows simply 
that axiom 3 = true; i.e., that syntax by itself is not sufficient for 
semantics. The CRT has no other purpose.

He needn't have given us the CRT at all to make his CRA work, except that he 
knew some philosophically challenged people might not see the obviousness of 
the third axiom. 

Let me know if you want to discuss Searle's actual argument.



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

Other related posts: