[Wittrs] Fw: wittrsamr: gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx post needs approval
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 13:59:23 -0800 (PST)
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
----- Forwarded Message ----
From: FreeLists Mailing List Manager <ecartis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed, January 20, 2010 4:52:55 PM
Subject: wittrsamr: gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx post needs approval
This message was received for a list you are a moderator on, and
was marked for moderation due to the following reason:
Non-member submission to closed-post list.
To approve this message and have it go out on the list, forward this to
wittrsamr-repost@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
If you wish to decline the post, change the 'apppost' below to 'delpost'.
If you wish to edit the post, change it to 'modpost' and edit the message
as needed - not all mail programs will work with modpost.
DO NOT DELETE THE FOLLOWING LINE. Ecartis needs it.
// apppost 4B577B37:6174.1:jvggefnze
From gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx Wed Jan 20 16:52:55 2010
Return-Path: <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
X-Original-To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Delivered-To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id
201ECCC88C5
for <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:52:55 -0500 (EST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at localhost.localdomain
Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1])
by localhost (turing.freelists.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
with ESMTP id wFq+Hf0-t+R4 for <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:52:55 -0500 (EST)
Received: from n37b.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com (n37b.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com
[66.163.168.151])
by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with SMTP id
BAA83CC888B
for <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Wed, 20 Jan 2010 16:52:53 -0500 (EST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=yahoogroups.com;
s=lima; t=1264024373; bh=tssPde+4rNq0Mui8ymdo98eq3z25l4dG70Wn29lIL3s=;
h=Received:Received:Date:From:To:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:User-Agent:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Mailer:X-Yahoo-Post-IP:X-Yahoo-Newman-Property:Sender;
b=tYvOBmtblljTktDV90OCsiCXCyT5k6nDF2DZTZ3saFVGYesVqiHxj58chJMn7d3B01hjz/Smzlhq5DdgGBf9vfnSED1UtivB5CB8YeFK9y0nbgI1iFedTGkIb3OK/Y3F
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=lima; d=yahoogroups.com;
b=GS+vzJBw1loW+g7BE/Q4fwIAOSPY9YC7/URJAcsABIMjsC/wHODOFX9j5Spf9GiadLLuCWXUlMyDdE/zdJn4Yf1Tkhe5su/4+C04E0I24zn8HtCDNtFzTELl6q/9hFAp;
Received: from [69.147.65.147] by n37.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20
Jan 2010 21:52:53 -0000
Received: from [98.137.34.73] by t10.bullet.mail.sp1.yahoo.com with NNFMP; 20
Jan 2010 21:52:53 -0000
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2010 21:52:51 -0000
From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: Dennett's Intentional Stance
Message-ID: <hj7tvj+964g@xxxxxxxxxxx>
In-Reply-To: <hj79ad+fc1m@xxxxxxxxxxx>
User-Agent: eGroups-EW/0.82
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Mailer: Yahoo Groups Message Poster
X-Yahoo-Post-IP: 66.213.14.116
X-Yahoo-Newman-Property: groups-compose
Sender: notify@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
>
>
> > Dennett doesn't even touch it since according to him intrinsic
> > intentionality is not something studied by the intentional stance.
>
> Quite right. So there is no mystery for Dennett. He eliminates the
> need for intrinsic intentionality, and thereby disolves the mystery.
But not quite meaningfully in my opinion! A joke for any mavens here.
>
>
> > I think you haven't bothered to read Searle's book _Intentionality_.
>
> There is nothing in that 1983 book to remove the mystery that Searle
> created in his 1980 Chinese Room argument, where he gave magical
> properties to intentionality.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
Well, it turns out that you haven't read that target article either! If yo=
u did, you wouldn't find any magical properties there attributed to intenti=
onality by Searle. I can also predict that you won't be able to go to the =
source and find one single sentence that would refute my assertion. I've r=
ead it. You haven't. And I have proof because I have a memory as well as =
a source I can refer to.
But prove me wrong if you can. Beats a prank call!
Cheers,
Budd
>
// eompost 4B577B37:6174.1:jvggefnze
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Fw: wittrsamr: gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx post needs approval - Sean Wilson
