[Wittrs] Re: The Meaning of Knowing Meanings
- From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 04:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Wed, 4/14/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> 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
Sure, but you literally defy logic when you conflate one axiom with another, or
axioms with conclusions.
In a formal argument, each axiom/premise stands or falls on its right,
independent of the over all argument. Surely you have enough education to know
this.
As written and explained by Searle, the 3rd axiom represents a claim about
syntax and semantics. It does *not* represent a claim about brains or about
programs or about computers or about minds or about what causes consciousness
or anything of that sort.
Searle formalized his argument for a reason: people like you had misconstrued
it in exactly the way you do.
Let me know if you want to discuss Searle's formal argument.
-gts
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
