[Wittrs] The Alleged 4th Premise: Is the CRA Valid?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 11:26:25 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Gordon Swobe wrote:
>>>Here we see the logical structure of Searle's formal argument as
>>>given in his article in Scientific American that I referenced
>>>earlier.
>>>(A1) Programs are formal (syntactic).
>>>(A2) Minds have mental contents (semantics).
>>>(A3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for
>>>semantics. (This is what the Chinese room experiment shows.)
>>>(C1) Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.
>>>(This conclusion should follow without controversy from the first
>>>three axioms.)
>>C1 *does* follow from the first three axioms alone.
>>the controversy that Stuart is promoting does not concern the validity
>>of the argument. it concerns the grounds for thinking that A3 is true.
>Let me congratulate you Joe for accurately parsing the argument this
>time although I think you overstate the case when you say my point does
>not concern the validity of the argument since it actually does ...
you are confusing validity and truth.
validity just concerns the form of the argument, its logical structure.
if the conclusion follows from the premises by valid steps, then the
argument is valid --- irregardless of whether the premises are true.
arguments about validity are internal to the argument; so, if you claim
it is invalid you should be able to show that without dragging in
speculations about Searle's psyche and any latent dualistic tendencies
you think he might have.
if you have a claim as to validity, now would be a good time to make it.
>... with regard to the fallacy of equivocation that I have said I've
>detected in the third premise.
the fallacy of equivocation involves using a word in two ways during the
course of the argument. if you think that there is an equivocation in
the third premise; then, would you kindly specify which word in the
third premise is used equivocally and describe the two meanings
involved?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
