[Wittrs] Re: The Meaning of Knowing Meanings
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 21:08:28 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 4/14/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> 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.
The third premise is part of an argument that is concerned with that and,
moreover, it is allegedly demonstrated by the CR, itself, which IS about what
computers 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!
>
Insofar as it's relevant to the CRA (which is the only reason to consider it),
it is about causation.
If it's just an assertion of non-identity, after all, then so what? No one
disputes that non-identity assertion, Gordon. But as an assertion of
non-identity it has NO implications for the CRA's conclusion and certainly
doesn't support it.
Non-identity does not imply non-causality. But if you think it does, feel free
to dispute that with something like a reason or two and I'll consider it.
> 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
>
>
On your own admission you have barely even read Dennett so how can you say
that? Certainly Dennett doesn't ignore it for he has critiqued it numerous
times.
However, I'm pleased to be lumped in here by you with Dennett. It's good
company to find oneself in.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
