[Wittrs] Re: Constitution vs Causation
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 20:15:43 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
> would you pay for a diamond and accept a lump of coal?
No, but I can see the basis for an identity claim
Joe, can we talk about the possibility that identity and causation can
hold apart from the body-mind problem -- for when it comes to the
latter, as I see it, both causation and identity may be useful concepts,
depending upon how they are applied.
> Stuart is equivocating between causation and constitution, calling
them
> both causation.
This we know.
> are you using 'causal' to refer to causation or constitution?
Causation. "The morning sun caused me to awake."
Constitution (if I have you right): "White matter is the seat of
intelligence."
But by my lights, neither of these claims justify claiming that "who and
what we are is caused by our brain." That is to say, the causal chain
ends in brain activity. We are not caused by but use our brain.
> Leibniz's Law (the Indiscernibility of Identicals) means that if two
> things are identical they must have the same properties.
Where property is defined as ? Diamonds and Coal are identical at a
particle level, though the molecules may be arranged differently. Then
there is the matter of value. There are any number of possible
properties. How does one apply the law?
> A has the property of being able to cause B. B lacks that
> property.
The cold air causes the water to turn to ice. The ice cools the
surrounding air.
Though A causes B. B causes A. This reciprocity is based on molecular
continuity. Brain and mind is an entirely different matter.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
