<html><head></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>On Dec 20, 2009, at Gordon Swobe wrote:</div><br><div><blockquote type="cite">The brain has understanding, yes, but Searle makes no claim about the dumbness or lack thereof of its components. You added that to his argument.</blockquote></div><div><br></div><div><div><div>I think Stathis was trying to be generous, but if Searle an individual neuron is the souse of our understanding then the man is an even bigger fool than I thought he was. </div></div></div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>He starts with the self-evident axiom that brains have understanding</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why the plural? The only self-evident axiom is that one brain has understanding. </div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>nobody has shown his formal argument false. If somebody has seen it proved false then point me to it.<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Good God almighty! I've shown in devastating and unanswered detail that his formal argument is not just false but positively vapid in a post this very day, and yesterday too, and the day before that, and the day before that, and the day before that. But I can't brag, I'm a latecomer to all this. Charles Darwin proved that ideas such as Searle's and yours were idiotic in 1859. </div><div><br></div><div> John K Clark </div><div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></body></html>