[Wittrs] [C] Re: Wittgenstein's Way
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 02 Nov 2009 03:31:11 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> I mean cause as distinct from condition.
Great. I appreciate your time and trouble. Let's check it out.
> 2 : something essential to the appearance or occurrence of something
else : prerequisite: as a :
> an environmental requirement available oxygen is an essential
condition for animal life
I can watch oxygen molecules interact with the body but I can't watch
brain interact with mind. So, this doesn't work.
> 1 a : a reason for an action or condition : motive
Obviously doesn't work. Brain has no motives.
> something that brings about an effect or a result
That would work if I can see HOW the brain brings about the effect.
Stimulate the C-fiber and the person reports pain. But does the C-fiber
bring about the pain (cause it) or is the firing of the fiber identical
with the pain and hence not a cause.? And if the C-fiber causes
something, exactly what is caused? The pain? The report? Remember it
takes a person to report. What is the mechanical relationship between
the C-fiber and a person? Does this question even make sense? Do people
relate to their C-fibers?
> Moreover, a having brain is not like having oxygen,
You bet. I breath and take in oxygen which is "not me." But I don't have
an external relationship with my brain and hence my brain can't cause me
to do anything since my brain and me are internally related.
> Does the brain decide to "hit the snooze"
You agree that brains don't decide but that I do. So what is the
relationship between the mechanical brain and the intentional Bruce. A
mechanism has no intention. One possibility is that intentions are
illusory. Everything is caused. Is that your thesis?
>...where's that ghost in the machine?
Yes, that would be your question since you have both a machine and a
willful person. Not my question since I don't see humans as machines.
Nor do I see them as spirits. Sorry, I don't buy your dual ontology.
> whether you are a body, including a brain that causes your
consciousness
A consciousness caused entirely by prior factors is antithetical to what
we mean by agency and yet.
> I have never denied agency and purpose
which, it seems to me, makes your position self-contradictory.
> Of course recognition is caused
If so, we have no need to speak of a person who recognizes. You make no
distinction between a computer that recognizes a program and a husband
who recognizes his wife's love? If so, you have no need for agency and
purpose. We are just noisy machines.
> The face IS physical even if we're not attending to the physical
material
What do you mean by "we're attending." There is no need for a person
attending. A physical thing (which our brain labels as a face) causes
the brain to make changes in the face outside the skull...and that's it.
> we cannot point to the smile as a physical constituent of the mouth!
There is no "we." And why can't the brain cause the finger to point
(excuse me, extend, only a person with an intention can point) and then
stimulate the language area which causes the mouth to utter the word
"smile?"
bruce
=========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
