How Do We Get From Electrons To

The Problem Posed By Indirect Speech Acts Is The Problem Of How It Is Possible For The Speaker To Say One Thing And Mean That But Also To Mean Something Else.

I Will Argue That In The Literal Sense The Programmed Computer Understands What The Car And The Adding Machine Understand, Namely, Exactly Nothing.

The General Nature Of The Speech Act Fallacy Can Be Stated As Follows, Using "good" As Our Example. Calling Something Good Is Characteristically Praising Or Commending Or Recommending It, Etc. But It Is A Fallacy To Infer From This That The Meaning Of "good" Is Explained By Saying It Is Used To Perform The Act Of Commendation.

Where Consciousness Is Concerned, The Appearance Is The Reality.

We Do Not Live In Several Different, Or Even Two Different, Worlds, A Mental World And A Physical World, A Scientific World And A World Of Common Sense. Rather, There Is Just One World; It Is The World We All Live In, And We Need To Account For How We Exist As Part Of It.