[Wittrs] Re: NewsFlash: The SILLies are Coming to Town
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 16 May 2010 01:29:59 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> SWM wrote:
>
> >Joseph Polanik wrote:
>
> >>the question is not whether Dennett denies subjective experience. the
> >>question is whether he has changed the definition of 'understanding'.
> >>if he has, his thesis (whatever it is) is irrelevant to the question
> >>of whether syntax can cause understanding as Seale defines
> >>'understanding'.
>
> >... he has offered a different way of understanding understanding, of
> >conceptualizing it, of explaining it.
>
> the man in the CR does not experience understanding chinese. whether or
> not he has a theory of understanding is beside the point.
>
There most certainly is an experience of understanding something, even if it is
not your afterimage!
> >But, insofar as "understanding" includes what we have often referred
> >to here and elsewhere as being aware of what we are doing in
> >understanding anything, having that sense of subjective recognition,
> >etc., etc. (which is to say having a subjective experience moment with
> >each instance of understanding), Dennett does not deny any of that.
>
> but, as an eliminative materialist, Dennett is committed to eliminating
> all use of any language that might refer to the subjective experience
> you say he does not deny.
>
Dennett does not deny experience or that we can talk about it or that, in
talking about it, we can speak of our motives, feelings, beliefs, desires,
thoughts, recollections, afterimages, etc.! What he does is say we don't have
to assume these are bottom line entities in explaining their occurrence, i.e.,
that we can explain there occurrence by describing the processes and functions
of brains.
> over here at Tony's Linguistic Pub, that silliness is regarded as a
> violation of TLP 5.6;
Oh, a violation is it? I hadn't considered that one could violate such
set-in-stone philosophical rules. Why even Wittgenstein himself violated the
thing he had said in the TLP. Haven't you figured out what philosophy is about
yet that you imagine there are rules that may not be violated?
> but, if you and the other regulars at Ludwig's
> Ordinary Language Sport Utility Bar are willing to self-inflict a
> linguistic lobotomy just because the Dennett tells you to; then, I say
> ... go for it.
>
> Joe
>
If this is the level of discourse we are now reduced to, I guess it's no loss
to end this. You may hang onto your dualism if you like, of course. No one can
take it away from you. But you are in fantasyland if you think you have made
any kind of convincing case for it thus far. Nor does turning to snidely
disparaging remarks do much to salvage your claims, though, perhaps, they may
make you feel a little better.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
