[Wittrs] Time to Pay Attention to Hauser's Comments!
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:42:21 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> --- On Thu, 4/8/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> >> As Searle pointed out, Dennett misconstrues the CRT
> >> (CR thought experiment) as about consciousness instead of
> >> syntax/semantics.
> >
> > That is surely one of Searle's more ridiculous responses,
> > as Hauser noted in that text...
>
> Again, I don't care what this Hauser person thinks. I care what Dennett and
> Searle and you and I think.
>
Hauser's curiculum vitae:
http://www.wutsamada.com/aol/lshauser/cybercv.html
I know you want to pick and choose who you pay attention to but note that
Hauser isn't some amateur on the Internet, even if he isn't one of the big name
philosophers like Searle or Dennett. Of course the issue isn't what Hauser said
BECAUSE HE SAID IT, either, but whether what he said has merit -- something you
are ill-suited to address given your refusal to consider his critique of
Searle's argument.
In fact, YOU selected some Searlean text that Hauser quoted and criticized and
then provided us with a link to it without considering the criticism offered by
Hauser, criticism that was highly pertinent to the quote you gave us. So you
brought Hauser into this and, in doing so, chose to disregard text that was
directly relevant to the words you were quoting!
> You continue to make the same mistake as Dennett.
>
This is an argument?
Well my rebuttal is that you continue to make the same mistake as Searle.
So there!
> Searle formulated his formal argument precisely to counter the sort of
> confusions and confabulations that you and Dennett promulgate.
>
So you say and, presumably, so Searle would say. On the other hand, I say
Searle's argument, from first to last, suffers from the same problems despite
his frequent restatements -- problems which I have already described at great
length here.
> Do you want to take Searle's formal argument seriously? Or not? If not then I
> will stop discussing it with you.
>
> -gts
>
The evidence is that you stopped discussing it with me (or anyone here) a long
while back since simply repeating oneself ad infinitum, as you have been doing,
is not to discuss anything at all.
On your view my criticism of Searle's formal argument is all the evidence you
need that I don't take his "formal argument seriously" while you continue to
make an abundance of charges, without supporting them, most recently claiming
that all "serious" critics of Searle's CRA agree that the third premise of the
CRA is uncontroversially true and then refusing to tell us what, on your view,
counts as "serious" and what doesn't and who you would count as a "serious"
critic of the CRA and who you would not so count.
This can be added to your ever lengthening list of unsupported and unexplicated
claims, I suppose. If you wish to argue for Searle's view you ought to do more
than simply repeat what you "believe" and what Searle says.
If you google Hauser you will see that he does a good job of tracking the ever
changing verbiage of Searle's CRA from the first appearance of it in 1980 to
more recent times. (Why Hauser put so much time into the CRA is somewhat
strange -- although I have done it myself, albeit on a smaller scale --
considering that he has so effectively dealt with its claims. I suppose it has
to do with rebutting the Searlean argument having been his master's or doctoral
thesis or some such. For me it's just an interesting subject, given my ongoing
interest in consciousness as a phenomenon and the penchant of so many on lists
like these to continue to embrace a viewpoint that looks so obviously flawed,
the more closely we examine it.)
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
