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

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sun, 21 Mar 2010 17:45:56 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Sun, 3/21/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> His CRA depends on a dualistic notion of consciousness. 

You may think as much, but Dennett certainly does not give us reason to believe 

In the quote that you provided, Dennett *insinuates* but does not actually 
claim or prove (because he cannot) that Searle's view equates to Cartesian 

Dennett's argument takes this form:

1) Searle believes the CRA.
2) A Cartesian dualist would believe the CRA for such-and-such reason.

Even if we take 2) as true, it does not follow that Searle believes the CRA on 
account of his holding to a dualistic world-view. 

Frankly I lost a lot of respect for Dennett based on that quote. It strikes me 
as a case of intellectual dishonesty. 

The CRA stands on its own, distinct from any considerations about dualism or 
non-dualism. We can and should consider it a simple logical proof. One needn't 
have any understanding of philosophy to follow the simple logic of the CRA.

Dennett needs to disprove Searle's simple logic. Specifically, he needs to SHOW 
that syntax by itself is somehow constitutive of or sufficient for semantics. 
He cannot offer any such argument, so he casts aspersions.



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

Other related posts: