[Wittrs] Re: The CRA: Is the Third Premise True?
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2010 09:43:07 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Fri, 4/9/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> But, in fact, non-identity does not imply non-causality and so it is
> a flawed inference.
If I accept your (lame) reasoning then I must take it that if Searle claimed
that apples are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for making orange juice,
you would accept the claim about the non-identity of apples and oranges but
then claim further that Searle had not proved that the crushing of apples does
not make orange juice.
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
