[Wittrs] Re: No Effing Way--Again
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2010 11:06:43 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 4/30/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Read the third axiom at face value. You'll notice
>> nothing there about consciousness or its causes!
>>
>
> The third premise plays a role in the argument, the CRA.
The question here concerns the claim of the third axiom, not the claim of the
CRA as a whole. I see no "non-causality claim" in the 3rd. I see only a simple
claim about syntax and semantics: a claim that the former neither constitutes
nor suffices for the latter. I see nothing more than that, and the truth of
this axiom seems to me pretty darned obvious.
Every time I bring this up, you reply by looking outside the 3rd axiom for
evidence to support your contention that the 3rd really means or could mean
something other than what it plainly states.
Apparently you don't understand the role that axioms and premises play in
formal arguments, or your thinking is hopelessly muddled, or both!
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
