[Wittrs] The CRA: Is the Third Premise True?
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2010 07:07:00 -0400
Note: In quoting Stuart, I've taken the liberty to decapitalize his
shouting behavior.
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>Gordon Swobe wrote:
>>>>>(A3) Syntax by itself is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for
>>>>>semantics. (This is what the Chinese room experiment shows.)
>>you are confusing validity and truth.
>The truth of the third premise depends on whether a particular way of
>conceiving consciousness is the ONLY way it can be conceived or whether
>there are some factual issues that may affect this (in Searle's
>argument there aren't).
>... the third premise is not self-evidently true in terms of causality
>(because the CR does not demonstrate that consciousness can only be
>understood as a process property).
and, therefore ... what?
was the CRT *trying* to demonstrate that consciousness must be a process
property? if so, where? if not, then what does it matter if it did not
accidentally do so?
what exactly is a process property anyway?
if Searle is correct to say that mind is causally reducible to brain
processes, does that make mind a process property of the brain or an
effect of a process property?
in any case, your oft' repeated claim that A3 can only be true if
consciousness is considered as a process property is questionable.
are you planning to run down all the mathematicians of the world to tell
them that you can strengthen formalism by making syntax define its own
applicability (semantics). all they have to do is stop thinking of mind
as a process property?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
