[Wittrs] Re: Who beat Kasparov?
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 19 Mar 2010 15:59:52 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Gordon Swobe <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> --- On Fri, 3/19/10, SWM <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> > Dennett's point about "intentionality" strikes me as pretty
> > sharp. There is nothing there in an important sense.
>
> He's an eliminativist, as I've said.
The question is, what does it mean to be an eliminativist? Is he merely saying
we're talking about this in the wrong way (as I see him doing) or is he saying
there's really no such thing as mind, consciousness, etc., as you and many
others seem to see him doing?
> He denies the reality of intentionality, albeit in a subtle fashion. For this
> reason he sees no important difference between Kasparov and Deep Blue.
Not in the context of that example, no. And I agree with his way of addressing
it.
> Also for this reason he calls Searle a dualist. But to eliminative
> materialists like Dennett, everyone looks like a dualist, including many
> (sane) materialists like Searle.
>
Except Searle is in self-contradiction because of his CRA. I call Searle a
dualist for that reason and did so before reading Dennett, however I think
Dennett sees the same thing I have referred to.
> Funny thing about it is that Dennett in his rush to avoid the stigma of
> dualism makes himself into one. In fact many materialists do. More later...
>
> -gts
>
>
I'd like to see the argument that makes Dennett a dualist (though I think
others have made it here before -- but let's see your take on it).
Thanks.
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
