[Wittrs] The Alleged 4th Premise: Is the CRA Valid?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 08:48:12 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik 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
where does Searle claim the third premise is self-evidently true; and,
what makes you think that an argument that the third premise is true
requires that it be self-evidently true?
in any case, your claim was that the CRA is invalid due to an
equivocation.
[Stuart]: I did confuse it at one point in my response (I said "valid
argument" when I meant "true conclusion". But here I did mean "valid"
when I said "valid" since my point was that the equivocal nature of the
terms of the third premise does undermine the validity of the CRA.
[Stuart]: my point about the equivocation in the third premise's terms
does go to the question of the form of the argument, i.e., that the
third premise does double duty and so is really two different claims
conflated in the same terms. This is the fallacy of equivocation and an
argument that carries a fallacy is not, by definition, valid.
in my last post in this thread, I pointed out that there was no
equivocation; that the third premise just made 2 claims.
your reply consists entirely of material challenging the *truth* of the
third premise; so, it certainly looks like you've abandoned the claim
that the CRA is invalid.
is that true?
if not, how do you rehabilitate the claim that there is an equivocation
in the third premise?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
