[Wittrs] Re: Ontologically Basic Ambiguity: Mode of Existence

  • From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 19:43:54 -0000

Stuart writes:

"Searle's CRA depends on the notion that the understanding MUST be a feature of 
a particular constituent process and completely disregards the possibility that 
it might be a systemwide funcion."

So, we are to take "particular constituent process" to be nonidentical in 
content with "systemwide function."

I didn't know earlier how to create such ice-cutting distinctions so as to show 
Searle the error of his CR ways!

Perhaps it is a mereological fallacy of Searle's to speak of a "particular 
constituent process" rather than a "systemwide function" as the possible causer 
of consciousness?

Or perhaps the use of "systemwide function" is a dangler with a lure of fake 

Perhaps this loose-speak is Janus-faced?

So many forks!  Wanna spoon?!


Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: