[Wittrs] Re: Searle's CRA and its Implications

  • From: "jrstern" <jrstern@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Tue, 16 Mar 2010 21:11:50 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> > Searle denies adamantly that the brain equals a S/H system, so his argument 
> > does not lead where Dennett would have us believe.
> Yes, Searle denies it but he is unclear on what he actually means much of the 
> time while finding as a flaw in computational programs running on computers 
> what he does not find to be a flaw in brains, leading to self-contradiction.

"S/H system" is not a term of art, this is a problem that cuts both ways, 
neither side knows what it means to affirm or deny that xyz is a system.  Even 
the simplest mereological arguments have to be hashed out, as none of them are 
entirely familiar.

In true Wittgensteinian style, one should not get caught up in some term, but 
say whatever it is you mean.

> We KNOW that brains cause consciousness (Searle's use of "cause").

Does not make it a meaningful statement.

Buicks don't "cause" trips to Macdonalds, in any sense I can see.

Aristotle offers us formal, material, efficient, and final causations.  Which 
of these is Searle's usage?  Perhaps something like material.  However, I 
suggest only efficient causation is valid in anything like modern terms, it is 
certainly the only one I use for anything at all.


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

Other related posts: