[Wittrs] The Alleged 4th Premise: Alternate Grounds for the Third Premise
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 07:55:16 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>you are confusing and conflating validity and truth again.
>>arguments about the validity of an argument need not send out for
>>external evidence; but, arguments for and against the truth of the
>>premises of an argument must do so.
>My argument is that the CRA does not demonstrate its conclusion. It
>fails because
>1) at least one key premise is not demonstrably true as derived from
>the CR; and
>2) the CRA as an argument is invalid because that same premise
>incorporates an equivocation that purports to show one thing but really
>shows another.
>>there are grounds unrelated to the CRA Presumption for believing
>>that syntax does not constitute and is not sufficient for
>>semantics.
>Nevertheless, they are not part of Searle's CR which is the basis for
>the claims made in the CRA.
and, therefore ... what?
a deductive argument stands on its own as far as its validity is
concerned. the CRT supports not the CRA but the argument that A3 is
true. there is no rule against looking for additional evidence
elsewhere.
>>again, from the wikipedia article I quoted: "According to formalism,
>>the truths expressed in logic and mathematics are not about numbers,
>>sets, or triangles or any other contensive subject matter - in fact,
>>they aren't 'about' anything at all. They are syntactic forms whose
>>shapes and locations have no meaning unless they are given an
>>interpretation (or semantics)."
>>now, Hilbert's attempt to reduce all of mathematics to syntactical
>>transformations failed; but, the point that's relevant in the current
>>context is that mathematicians acknowledge that attributing semantics
>>to syntax is an operation separate from manipulation of the syntax.
>And how does that show that what Searle calls "syntax" cannot cause
>"semantics"?
the premise of formalism is similar if not identical to Searle's A3;
but, it doesn't depend for its validity on an alleged equivocation; and,
it doesn't depend for its truth on an assumption of Cartesian style
interactive substance dualism.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
