[Wittrs] Re: What Is Ontological Dualism?
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2010 01:21:38 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote: To:
wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> The DVD and CD players, to the extent that they are digital devices,
> work by manipulating electrical impulses that are arbitrarily
> assigned the values of '1' and '0' based on the strength of the
> impulse.
> human intentionality is required to designate the high voltage
> impulse as a '1' and the low voltage as a '0'. it's arbitrary. it
> could have been done in reverse.
The music and video still play, whether or not there is a human around
lending intentionality.
The point here is that the Searle style of argument works just as well
for these examples. Describe the action of the processor as symbol
manipulation. And from that it seems quite ridiculous that you could
get music or video playing. So argument by ridicule, such as Searle
used, should show that DVD and CD players do not work. But, of course,
they do work. And they work because the music or video is produced by
the system as a whole. Looking only at the processor paints a
misleading picture of what is happening.
Searle never adequately responds to the Systems Reply. Nor does
Gordon.
> syntax doesn't generate semantics because it is an act with mental
> content (semantic) that creates the possibility of syntax.
While that might possibly be true, all we have from Searle, from Gordon
and from you are bare assertions with no actual evidence.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
