*From*: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>*To*: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx*Date*: Fri, 26 Mar 2010 19:45:07 -0400

SWM wrote: >Joseph Polanik wrote: >>what does 'implies' mean today? are you saying that Searle's position >>presumes Cartesian dualism; or, are you saying that Cartesian dualism >>follows (can be deduced) from Searle's position? >I have used the term "presumes" numerous times by now so why do you >even think you have to ask? A presumption is also an implication if we >reverse the line of reasoning. That is, if a conclusion DEPENDS on a >presumption, then, if the conclusion is true, it follows that the >presumption is. well, Stuart, what you have here is a very concise formula for perpetrating the fallacy of affirming the consequent. if a conclusion, Q, depends on a presumption, P, then you have a conditional statement: P -> Q [P implies or entails Q]. if you find that the conclusion is true, you may assert Q. if you say that it follows that P is true you have the argument: P -> Q Q (therefore) P that is precisely what the fallacy of affirming the consequent is. did you even read the page to which I referred you a few days ago, http://www.onegoodmove.org/fallacy/affirm.htm? Joe -- Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ http://what-am-i.net @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@ ========================================== Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

**Follow-Ups**:

**References**:

- » [Wittrs] Stuart Admits to Fallacious Reasoning - Joseph Polanik
- » [Wittrs] Re: Stuart Admits to Fallacious Reasoning- SWM