[Wittrs] Re: Commentary: The Stuart-Bruce Debate
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 02:57:51 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
SWM wrote:
> >The point is it's not "another phenomenon", it's an expression (one of
> >many) of the physical world as all phenomena in the world are.
>
Joe responds:
> it seems to me that the linguistic knot involved here derives from the
> practice of using the same word, 'phenomenon', in two names, 'mental
> phenomena' and 'physical phenomena'.
>
> using 'phenomena' in both phrases suggests sameness while using 'mental'
> and 'physical' as qualifiers suggests an essential difference.
>
> which suggestion is the stronger?
>
> suppose we used a different pair of qualifiers, 'measurable' and
> 'experiencable'.
>
> we could then reformulate the hard problem of consciousness research as
> 'how does a measurable phenomena produce an experiencable phenomena?'.
>
> until that question is answered, neither monistic theories nor dualistic
> theories can be ruled in or out.
>
> Joe
This isn't a debate about monistic vs. dualistic theories. That issue is beside
the point. However, you're right that a good deal of the problem between Bruce
and me is linguistic. I don't think your proposed solution will make much of a
difference though because what is measurable is also experienceable since we
cannot measure without experiencing, even if there are some things we can
experience but not measure (or at least not measure in terms of strictly
observable phenomena). -- SWM
=========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
