🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Bz5uv8.FyF@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu> chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers) writes:

>It's about consciousness.  Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
>Searle phrases it in terms of intentionality, but that's because he
>thinks that consciousness is required for intentionality (see his
>1990 BBS paper).  This has caused no end of confusion.
>
Let's not confuse things with agendas here, Dave. M,B,&P was about
understanding (in the sense of understanding one's language.
The new book (and the 1990 article) is explicitly about consciousness.
If you want to argue that the former is, for Searle, part and parcel
of the latter, that's fine. I've been working very hard here, however,
to separate people's opinion of the CR from those about the new book.
In the end, the consciousness question is the important one, I think.

-- 
Christopher D. Green                christo@psych.toronto.edu
Psychology Department               cgreen@lake.scar.utoronto.ca
University of Toronto
Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1