[Wittrs] Searle's CRA vs his Biological Naturalism

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Mon, 22 Mar 2010 06:17:14 -0700 (PDT)

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

> But the CRA is drawing conclusions about what causes
> understanding (as in 'brains cause consciousness' - Searle),

No, I think you/Dennett conflate Searle's CRA with his argument for biological 

The CRA tells us almost nothing about what actually causes  
semantics/consciousness/intentionality. We must consider the CRA as a 
*negative* argument: it shows simply that formal programs do not and cannot 
cause minds. Period, end of argument.

Now then after we accept the conclusion of the CRA then Searle has 
something interesting to say about brains and consciousness. The 
conclusion of the CRA acts as a premise in that new and different 
*positive* argument for biological naturalism.



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

Other related posts: