[Wittrs] Re: The Meaning of Knowing Meanings
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2010 12:29:23 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Wed, 4/14/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> 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.
>
The premise is part of an argument. Its entire significance relates to the role
it plays in the argument. The fact that it can mean two different things is
significant for the role it plays in the argument. THAT's the logical fallacy
of equivocation, when the meaning of a term or terms in an argument shift to
support a conclusion that the terms' other meaning would not support.
> 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.
>
Oh stop that nonsense, Gordon. We are speaking of a logical argument and the
role of a particular premise within it. The point is the premise can mean
different things where one thing is accepted as being demonstrably true, the
other is not, and where the first thing's truth is then rolled forward to
support a conclusion that requires the SECOND meaning to be true!
> 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.
>
The CRA is about what a computer can or cannot "cause". So is the CR which
ostensibly demonstrates the truth of the third premise.
But the truth it demonstrates does not relate to the conclusion it is intended
to support and the reading of the premise that DOES relate to it, is not
demonstrated to be true.
How many more ways do I need to explain this? You are CONFUSING two meanings
and conflating the implications of the premise because of that.
Again: IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT THE NON-IDENTITY CLAIM IS TRUE BECAUSE
NON-IDENTITY DOES NOT IMPLY NON-CAUSALITY AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE CRA
REQUIRES THE NON-CAUSALITY READING OF THE PREMISE TO BE TRUE.
> Searle formalized his argument for a reason: people like you had misconstrued
> it in exactly the way you do.
>
Searle made a serious logical error which he has spent years trying to iron out
without 'fessing up. "People like you" who apparently want Searle to be right
simply refuse to acknowledge the errors many others have seen to varying
degrees.
> Let me know if you want to discuss Searle's formal argument.
>
> -gts
>
>
The problem here is that you either don't know, or have been pretending you
don't know, that that is what we have been doing. In order to save it you have
tried to isolate the third premise and defend it which you do by reasserting
the non-identity reading of the claim. But it doesn't matter that you defend
the premise on that basis BECAUSE NO ONE DENIES IT. It's just not relevant to
the role the third premise is called upon to play in the CRA.
I have, in my time, seen many moves to salvage the CRA but yours is genuinely
unique for its stubborn refusal to address the explicit claim I've made in
favor of insisting on an irrelevancy.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
