[Wittrs] Re: The Meaning of Knowing Meanings
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 13:50:54 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Wed, 4/14/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> The third premise of Searle's CRA (in the early
>> nineties iteration we have been using) allows for two
>> distinctly different interpretations, one being a claim of
>> non-identity, the other a claim of non-causality.
> >
> > Not about causality except in your imagination.
> >
>
> What does Searle say of brains and minds, Gordon? Brains
> "cause" consciousness, right?
The 3rd axiom does not concern what brains can or cannot cause. In the simplest
terms, (not simple enough for you it seems), the 3rd axiom concerns whether any
agent can come to know the meanings of symbols from knowing only their shapes.
It's about the question of whether syntax suffices for semantics. And for
reasons that anyone not caught in the grips of an ideology would deem obvious,
it doesn't. End of story!
NOW, after we accept the 3rd we can consider other axioms and concepts in the
CRA. (You know... the real CRA... the one that you and Dennett choose to
ignore.)
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
