[Wittrs] Re: The CRA: Is the Third Premise True?
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 08:02:12 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Thu, 4/8/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> And who defines what counts as a "serious" reply, by the
> way? Is Dennett's not a serious reply then?
As Searle pointed out, Dennett misconstrues the CRT (CR thought experiment) as
about consciousness instead of syntax/semantics. No doubt Searle formalized his
argument partly in response to Dennett's strawman characterization of it.
> Are the Churchlands not serious?
The Churchlands miss the point for the reasons stated in the same Scientific
American article in which Searle formalized his argument.
I've aimed my efforts here at helping YOU understand the formal argument that
neither Dennett nor the Churchlands have actually addressed.
But as I've mentioned, you continue to conflate the third axiom with the
conclusion, just as does Dennett.
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
