[Wittrs] The CRA in Symbolic Form (According to Joe)
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 19:01:59 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>>>unless you can explain why formalist mathematicians do not need to
>>>>presuppose interactive substance dualism, you haven't shown that the
>>>>CRA depends on a presupposition of interactive substance dualism.
>>>Demonstrate that instead of asserting it.
>>I did. in my proof of the CRA, I did not need to assume interactive
>>substance dualism in order to derive the conclusion of the CRA from
>>the three axioms.
>Your "proof" did not prove anything. It merely showed a series of
>relationships which, if they obtained, lead to a certain conclusion
that's what a proof is.
>(though it's questionable whether such a high level of complexity as
>you introduced is needed to get there since, if the CRA's premises are
>true, then it's conclusion would be without all the additional stuff --
>but, of course, the point is they aren't).
that's right. having demonstrated the logical validity of the CRA, it
follows that, if its axioms are true, its conclusion is also true.
>>Neither did I assume a dualism of ontological basicness.
>... all you did was lay out a series of logical relations.
I accomplished just a bit more than that.
I showed that the logical relations between the axioms and the
conclusions of the CRA do NOT require an assumption of dualism (contrary
to your frequently stated claims).
>>to sum up,
>>Searle: the mind is caused by the brain.
>>Dennett: the mind *is* the brain.
>>Stuart: and, therefore, Searle is a dualist.
>Read my argument again for why Searle is a dualist.
now that the logical validity of the CRA has been demonstrated, we can
move on to the evaluation of Searle's argument that the third axiom is
true and the evaluation of your critique of it; and, in this context,
your opinions as to whether Searle is a dualist are completely
irrelevant; because, they constitute an ad hominem argument.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
