[Serious Phil] The Fundamental Flaw of Mirsky Logic

[Peter D]

--- In Phil-Sci-Mind at yahoogroups.com, Joseph Polanik <Philscimind at ...> wrote:
>
> SWM wrote:
> 
>  >Peter D wrote:
> 
>  >>SWM wrote:
> 
>  >>>Peter D wrote:
> 
>  >>>>SWM wrote:
> 
>  >>>>>Peter D wrote:
> 
>  >>>>>>SWM wrote:
> 
>  >>>>>>>Peter D wrote:
> 
>  >>>>>>>>SWM wrote:
> 
>  >>>>>>>>>It doesn't matter what label you put on something. If you think
>  >>>>>>>>>a model like Dennett's fails BECAUSE it doesn't account for
>  >>>>>>>>>experience on the grounds that his description of how mental
>  >>>>>>>>>features can be constructed via an information processing
>  >>>>>>>>>system doesn't "explain salty" (as you have often said) then
>  >>>>>>>>>that can only be because you're looking for an explanation
>  >>>>>>>>>without reduction.
> 
>  >>>>>>>>No. It can be for the reasons I have stated. I have refuted
>  >>>>>>>>all your "is only" and "can only" claims by offering
>  >>>>>>>>alternatives.
> 
>  >>>>>>>Hardly.
> 
>  >>>>>>Did I not offer an alternative just now? Are you literally
>  >>>>>>blind to my actual arguments?
> 
>  >>>>>I've already explained WHY your arguments amount to dualism (i.e.,
>  >>>>>explained their implications).
> 
>  >>>>That's crap. That dualism is a possible implication of my
>  >>>>argumens, AND NOT ONE I PERSONALLY ACCEPT, does not mean that I am
>  >>>>making dualistic ASSUMPTIONS.
> 
>  >>>>IMPLICATIONS ARE NOT ASSUMPTIONS.
> 
>  >>>See above.
> 
>  >>They're still not.
> 
>  >It's an irrelevant point since some things imply certain assumptions.
> 
> that is precisely 180 degrees ass-backwards.
> 
> in the jargon of standard (non-Mirsky) logic, 'imply' means 'entails'
> 
> therefore:
> 
> assumptions entail (or imply) conclusions
> 
> conclusions have assumptions (or premises or presuppositions) upon which
> they rest.
> 
> 
> you appear to be accusing PDJ of dualism on the grounds: (1) that his
> argument doesn't follow from the assumptions to which he admits unless
> he adds an additional premise; and, (2) that that additional premise is
> dualistic in some way.
> 
> if that is indeed your point, you can get it across in standard jargon
> by saying "PDJ presupposes premise P which is dualistic".
> 
> what you actually said (that PDJ's argument implies dualism) means the
> exact opposite of your point to the entire rest of the planet.
> 
> learn the vocabulary of argument; otherwise, you are just blathering.
> 
> Joe
> 
> 


The confusion IS his argument. He wants the reader to be confused
into thinking that possible dualistic conclusions *means* actual dualistic assumptions. Without that confusion, there is nothing
left.