[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 07 Apr 2010 20:33:24 -0000
--- In WittrsAMR@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@> wrote:
>
> > Meant to write below that "this conclusion does NOT fall under the
> > definition of 'intuition' as you want to say."
> >
> >
>
> A Freudian slip then? If it's not about your intuition, what do you think
> it's about? Is it just the claim that non-identity implies non-causality
> (which we already know is not logically the case)? -- SWM
Your problem is that you focus on the premises as if they poofed out of
nowhere. If you grasp the target article, you will grasp that Searle is saying
that symbol manipulation alone can't cause anything. It is simply the case
that functional properties are second-order ones and they don't cause anything.
You can't turn around and say that what Searle means above is due to claiming
that "non-identity impliesnon-causality." That is just not the case.
What IS the case is that you simply wish it were that easy to critique Searle.
But wishing doesn't make it so.
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
