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… — John Searle Copy Share Image
The problem posed by indirect speech acts is the problem of how it is possible for the speaker to say one thing and mean… — John Searle Copy Share Image
In many cases it is a matter for decision and not a simple matter of fact whether x understands y; and so on — John Searle Copy Share Image
We often attribute 'understanding' and other cognitive predicates by metaphor and analogy to cars, adding machines, and other artifacts, but nothing is proved by… — John Searle Copy Share Image
I will argue that in the literal sense the programmed computer understands what the car and the adding machine understand, namely, exactly nothing — John Searle Copy Share Image
We do not live in several different, or even two different, worlds, a mental world and a physical world, a scientific world and a… — John Searle Copy Share Image
Whatever is referred to must exist. Let us call this the axiom of existence. — John Searle Copy Share Image
You can't *discover* that the brain is a digital computer. You can only *interpret* the brain as a digital computer. — John Searle Copy Share Image
How do we get from electrons to elections and from protons to presidents? — John Searle Copy Share Image
Where conscious subjectivity is concerned, there is no distinction between the observation and the thing observed — John Searle Copy Share Image
"Akrasia" [weakness of will] in rational beings is as common as wine in France. — John Searle Copy Share Image
Nowadays nobody bothers, and it is considered in slightly bad taste to even raise the question of God's existence. Matters of religion are like… — John Searle Copy Share Image