[Wittrs] Re: Let's Try Something a Little More Formal
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2010 21:24:43 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@> wrote:
>
> > Stuart, for the umpteenth time, writes:
> >
> > "As I noted above, one can use "constitute" to make a causal claim in
> > certain cases, too, as Searle does."
> >
> > Not buying this, Stuart. When he says that syntax doesn not constitute
> > semantics, he is saying they are not identical.
> >
>
> Oh, I fully agree! The problem is he doesn't notice that he then elides a
> non-identity claim into a non-causal one because he is a victim of his own
> verbiage in the third premise. The reason he is is that it reflects his own
> deepseated conception of what consciousness is, i.e., the dualistic
> presumption.
No effing way, unless you remain obtuse to the first premise. And if so, you
can't eff your ill-gotten conclusion. Grade: F on understanding Searle.
But maybe we can have a beer anyway.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
