[Wittrs] Re: Searle: not a Cartesian Dualist

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 06:44:59 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, Joseph Polanik <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

I wrote to Stuart:
>>> 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 dualism.

Stuart wrote: 
>> He asks who would believe the CRA's claim that more of
>> the same wouldn't make a difference and responds rhetorically
>> that a Cartesian dualist would.

Joe wrote:
> yes; but, note that he does not say *ONLY* a Cartesian
> dualist would believe that more of the same wouldn't make a difference

Exactly, Joe. I don't know why Stuart cannot see this.

Searle's third axiom that 'syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor 
sufficient for semantics' stands in its own right. We can consider it true both 
in a dualistic and in a non-dualistic universe.



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

Other related posts: