[Wittrs] Re: The Alleged 4th Premise: Is the CRA Valid?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 01 Apr 2010 19:03:55 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> SWM wrote:
> >The third premise says: "Syntax does not constitute and is not
> >sufficient for semantics".
>
> >My point is that Searle's third premise can be read two ways:
> >As a claim of non-identity (which IS self-evidently true) and as a
> >claim of non-causality which depends on the conception of consciousness
> the third premise should be read as making *both* claims. it is a
> complex proposition and is equivalent to *both* "Syntax does not
> constitute semantics" and "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics"
>
The point is that one claim IS self-evidently true (which is what Searle claims
for it) while the other is not and, in fact, could only be true in the context
of the CRA if the CR demonstrated that understanding could never be derived
from what Searle calls "syntactical" operations.
By conflating the two claims, the appearance of self-evidential truth covers
over the lack of real evidence that consciousness is not derivable from
anything syntactical and leads the reader to carry that conflation into the
conclusion. The conclusion requires the causal claim to be true and there is
nothing in the CR that demonstrates that but an assumption that is
fundamentally dualist in its way of conceiving consciousness.
> the first of these asserts the non-identity claim, while the second
> asserts the non-causality claim (actually insufficiency of causation
> would be better).
>
And non-identity does not imply non-causality, therefore the non-identity
claim, in fact, has no relevance to the conclusion of the CRA.
> >Searle needs a claim of non-causality to make the CRA's conclusion
> >true
>
> he's got one.
>
> Joe
>
He needs the claim to be true for the conclusion to be. Otherwise all he's done
is papered over the gap between the two meanings in the dual use terms.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
