<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 8, 2009, at 7:04 AM, Gordon Swobe wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; font-family: Verdana; font-size: medium; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; ">He explains exactly why in his formal argument:<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br><br>Premise A1: Programs are formal (syntactic).<br>Premise A2: Minds have mental contents (semantics).<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Premise A3: Syntax is neither constitutive of nor sufficient for semantics.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Ergo,<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br>Conclusion C1: Programs are neither constitutive of nor sufficient for minds.<br></span></blockquote><div><br></div>So he assumes that programs can't have minds and then triumphantly concludes that programs can't have minds. I don't think creationists like Searle are very bright.</div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark<br><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>