[Wittrs] Re: The Ontologically Basic Fallacy

  • From: Gordon Swobe <gts_2000@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2010 07:47:17 -0700 (PDT)

--- On Thu, 3/25/10, SWM <wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Right. He doesn't say if there are other reasons to believe
> the CRA's conclusion is true. But the issue is whether the
> CRA is an adequate argument to imply the truth of its
> conclusion. It is perfectly possible that there are
> empirical reasons for thinking the conclusion true. But
> Searle's argument isn't built on any of those. It is built
> on the three premises in the body of the argument. He is
> saying that a dualist (of the Cartesian variety) would hold
> this view but he leaves open the question of whether there
> are other reasons.  

Cartesian dualists reject strong AI a priori, before any considerations about 
any kind of CRA, so Dennett tells us nothing important when he points out that 
Cartesian dualists would agree with Searle. 

Dennet's argument amounts to nothing more than name calling. He cannot offer a 
real rebuttal to Searle -- he cannot explain *HOW* syntax can give semantics -- 
so he resorts to subtle ad hominem.

If Searle's CRA demonstrated that 2+2=4 then Dennett might have counter-argued, 
as evidence against that conclusion, that people who believe in the tooth fairy 
also believe that 2+2=4. 

-gts




=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/

Other related posts: