[Wittrs] The Alleged 4th Premise: Is the CRA Valid?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:59:04 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>where does Searle claim the third premise is self-evidently true;
>Either in Language, Mind and Society or Minds, Brains and Science.
when you find it, let us know.
>>what makes you think that an argument that the third premise is true
>>requires that it be self-evidently true?
>Searle, since his point is derived from what he tells us is obvious in
>the CR. If the premises in question are true for different reasons then
>you have to make the case for that, i.e., with other steps and
>premises, other thought experiments, or empirical data, etc.
obviously, if you make a claim you have to support your claim; but,
claiming that X is true does not require you to prove that X is
self-evidently true.
>>in any case, your claim was that the CRA is invalid due to an
>>equivocation.
>But that the deeper problem lies in the assumption that the CR
>demonstrates that understanding cannot occur if it isn't found in the
>constituent elements making up the CR. The equivocation serves to mask
>the trick, as it were, to create a kind of illusion that a truism has
>been discovered. But because non-identity does not imply non-causality
>and because the third premise can be read as both a claim of
>non-identity and a claim of non-causality, we are snookered into
>accepting a false implication.
we need to unpack this vaguely incoherent verbiage.
what implication are we snookered into accepting; and, how do you know
it is false?
I agree that the third premise makes both a claim of non-identity and a
claim of non-causality; and, that non-identity does not imply
non-causality; but, I don't understand how we are snookered jut because
both these claims are true.
there is no equivocation in the third premise except the one you are
trying to read into it. see below.
are you saying that the CRA presumes or that it concludes that
"understanding cannot occur if it isn't found in the constituent
elements making up the CR"? or are you saying that the Third Axiom is
True Argument, TATA, presumes or concludes that "understanding cannot
occur if it isn't found in the constituent elements making up the CR"?
if either, which is it, presumes or concludes?
>>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.
>No. I have been quite explicit here that there are two issues, both
>equivocation and a wrong underlying conception of mind.
>>is that true?
>>if not, how do you rehabilitate the claim that there is an
>>equivocation in the third premise?
>It doesn't need to be rehabilitated. Your reading of it as a claim of
>non-identity AND non-causality conjoined misses the point that the
>terms on both sides of the "AND" can be read both ways because
>"constitute" and "sufficient for" can BOTH be read as relating to an
>identity and a causal claim.
that is your equivocation, not Searle's.
the grammatical form of A3 ("Syntax does not constitute and is not
sufficient for semantics") allows it to be broken down into two
statements:
[S1] "Syntax does not constitute semantics"; and,
[S2] "Syntax is not sufficient for semantics"
we have the two claims that A3 makes:
[C1] the 'non-identity claim'; and,
[C2] the 'non-causality claim'.
now the sensible thing to do is to read A3 so that S1 asserts C1 and S2
asserts C2.
you, on the other hand, create an equivocation by insisting that you
read A3 so that S1 asserts both C1 and C2 and S2 asserts both C1 and C2.
that is *your* equivocation, not Searle's, and serves no purpose other
than reducing philosophical discourse to a quagmire of ambiguity.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
