[Wittrs] Having Concepts: A Brief Refutation of the Twentieth Century
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 20 Mar 2010 15:31:38 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Sat, 3/20/10, gabuddabout <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Funny enough, it turns out that Dennett baldly (well, maybe
> considerably late in the pages of _Consciousness Explained_)
> dismisses the second premise. Cf. Searle's review of Dennett.
No surprise there. As I mentioned to Stuart, while I don't know what Dennett
calls himself, from what I know of him I must consider him something of an
eliminativist.
> I suppose that such baldness is treated as philosophical
> anathema for those who aren't so Wittgensteinian that their
> philosophy is expressed as a sort of joke with breezy airs
> of seriousness. This just may account for a very bold
> title of one of Fodor's more recent papers: "Having
> Thoughts: A Brief Refutation of the Twentieth
> Century."
I think you must mean "Having Concepts [not "Thoughts"]: A Brief Refutation of
the Twentieth Century." I found a complete copy here:
http://www.nyu.edu/gsas/dept/philo/courses/mindsandmachines/Papers/havingconcepts.pdf
I'll read it and get back to you. Thanks.
> Further, I wonder if anybody ever thought to create an
> analogue of the CR by calling something the HR (human
> room). We put an humunculus inside the HR and, lo, the
> poor guy can't make heads or tails out of brute physical
> happenings such that physics also is insufficient for
> semantics!
That sounds like something I would do. (I think you must have almost liked my
Language Room Argument on that other list. :)
-gts
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
- » [Wittrs] Having Concepts: A Brief Refutation of the Twentieth Century - Gordon Swobe
