[Wittrs] Re: The CRA: Is the Third Premise True?
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 8 Apr 2010 06:44:14 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Wed, 4/7/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> if Searle's argument is so simple, as Gordon puts it, that even
> a kindergartner would understand it (and, presumably, thereby agree),
> how is it that all these heavily credentialed non-kindergartners
> criticize it and, according to Searle, don't understand it?
As Budd tried to point out, I referred to the subject in the title of thread:
the third axiom in Searle's formal argument.
And yes I maintain that even a kindergartner could understand the third axiom,
even if various philosophers might have a problem with the entire argument. In
fact every *serious* reply to the CRA starts with the recognition that, at the
very least, Searle got it right that syntax doesn't give semantics.
Perhaps some sub-axioms of A3 will help:
A3a = nobody and nothing can know the meaning of a symbol from knowing only its
form.
A3b = nobody and nothing can know the meanings of symbols from performing
operations on them based only on their forms.
A3 = form is thus neither constitutive of nor sufficient for meaning, i.e.,
syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.
It's just a simple fact of life.
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
