From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus!appserv!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber Sun Dec  1 13:05:51 EST 1991
Article 1671 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!qt.cs.utexas.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!cronkite.Central.Sun.COM!exodus!appserv!orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM!silber
>From: silber@orfeo.Eng.Sun.COM (Eric Silber)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy
Subject: Re: Daniel D in the lion's den
Message-ID: <1164@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 21 Nov 91 20:58:59 GMT
References: <15018@castle.ed.ac.uk> <1991Nov19.183901.5640@husc3.harvard.edu> <32905@uflorida.cis.ufl.EDU> <1991Nov21.005355.5696@husc3.harvard.edu>
Sender: news@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 25

In article <1991Nov21.005355.5696@husc3.harvard.edu> zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>Now, if neural pulses are indeed symbols in the above sense, it seems
>reasonable to pose a question of what is the material (for it must be such
 ^^^^^^^^^^ (^^^^^^)  [feint]                 !!!!!!!!         ^^^^^^^
>under the assumptions of reductive materialism, assumed by Dennett & Co.)
 *!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*!*
>property in virtue of which they stand their referents, in accordance with
>the traditional characterization of the sign by the formula *aliquid pro
>aliquo*.  The problem with identifying such a property is twofold.  
>
 Rhetorical usage of the term "reductionism" is here in play.  The
 attacker of "reductionism" appropriates the position of
 the "materialist" as part of the attack.  To maintain that physical
 processes are the means in which, by which, and through which
 consciousness IS, is not to maintain that a symbol must have a
 material mushroom to sit on!  The messages passed between neurons
 are PHYSICAL processes albeit not "material" entities per se !!!

 <much theory deleted>

 Mind is inadequate, no doubt about that, but why let its incompleteness
 and its inadequacy force us into mystical appeals?  Sure we need
 better theories, but nevertheless, every theory is made out of 
 nuts and bolts!


