[Wittrs] Re: The CRA in Symbolic Form (According to Joe)
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sun, 02 May 2010 03:15:56 -0000
I have sworn off paying too much attention to you Joe, from here on in. It's a
waste of my time as I've concluded you aren't a serious thinker on these
subjects. But I'll offer just a bit below:
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >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.
>
A syllogistic type proof has a logical form but the form is empty without
content and therefore proves nothing. You are confusing form with substance.
> >(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.
>
But its axioms aren't shown to be, therefore its conclusions don't follow as
proved and thus true. More seriously, the CRA, trades on a dual reading of its
third premise which masks the absence of established truth in that premise.
Insofar as it does that it's invalid. Removing the ambiguity would render it
valid but it wouldn't entail the truth of the necessary constituent premises.
You really are confusing form and substance. I think you are so enthused with
the idea of "formal proof" that you forget that it's empty by definition.
> >>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).
>
No you didn't. If you like reproduce the segment you think does that and we can
take another look. Just don't throw the whole 28 step monstrosity up here again
as I am not interested in spending my time unpacking it. If Searle can make his
case in four steps, and he developed the argument, you ought to be able to do
it. He's already shown you the way!
> >>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,
It's only logically valid if it doesn't contain any fallacies. While it can be
written to eliminate the fallacy of equivocation that it has in Searle's
rendition of it, written without that fallacy exposes the absence of truth in
its underlying premises so it still doesn't work.
>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;
Only if you're prepared to do it in a lot fewer than 28 steps and don't
sidetrack us with stories about mathematical arguments that don't pertain to
the CRA, your revisions of von Neumann's categories, the "is of isness", etc.,
etc. I don't plan to waste my time chasing every red herring of an argument you
put up here any longer.
> and, in this context,
> your opinions as to whether Searle is a dualist are completely
> irrelevant; because, they constitute an ad hominem argument.
>
Bullshit.
First I have never used "dualism" as a pejorative. I have merely shown why
dualism has certain problems (it's inconsistent with what we now know about the
world and violates Occam's Razor) and that, if Searle holds a dualist view,
then he is in self-contradiction. Nothing "ad hominem" about that unless you
have some kind of guilty conscience about being a dualist.
Second, however, my point about the dualism implicit in Searle's CRA is the key
to my case so it cannot be dispensed with. The very notion that syntax can't
cause semantics because syntax isn't semantics hinges on a dualist idea of mind.
If you want to proceed, then focus on the issues and stop blowing smoke.
Otherwise I've got better things to do with my time.
SWM
> Joe
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
