[Wittrs] Re: The CRA in Symbolic Form (According to Joe)
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2010 16:18:39 -0000
Hmmm, this is a much briefer and probably more to the point response than mine
wherein I engaged to follow his steps and point out the problems (which,
finally, boil down to the failure to provide precise meanings to key terms).
But your approach is much better than mine, i.e., showing the logical
contradiction in the effort itself. My hat is off to you for that insight! --
SWM
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@...> wrote:
>
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@> wrote:
>
>
> > Formalization of CRA
>
> Let me see if I understand what you have done.
>
> You have provide a formal argument. That is, your argument amounts to
> a mere mechanical manipulation of meaningless marks.
>
> On the basis of that syntactic argument you reach a semantic
> conclusion. And that semantic conclusion is that syntactic arguments
> cannot lead to semantic conclusions.
>
> It seems to be a mind boggling example of a self-refuting argument.
>
> Regards,
> Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
