[Wittrs] Constitution vs Causation
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 07:15:55 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>Dennett would be saying that consciousness is nothing more than what
>>causes consciousness; specifically, that consciousness is nothing more
>>than the brain; or, more simply, that the mind *is* the brain.
>In a sense he says just that
in a sense? here is Dennett in his own words:
"The prevailing wisdom, variously expressed and argued for, is
materialism: there is only one sort of stuff, namely matter --- the
physical stuff of physics, chemistry and physiology --- and the mind is
somehow nothing but a physical phenomenon. in short, the mind is the
brain." [_Consciousness Explained_ p. 33]
>but what "nothing more" means probably is different for you than for
>him since you imagine it's to say consciousness doesn't exist and he
>doesn't say that. His book, Consciousness Explained, assumes it exists
>in order, of course, to explain it.
Dennett certainly assumes that the brain exists. the question is whether
he assumes that the brain constitutes consciousness or that the brain
causes consciousness (using 'cause' in the scientific sense of causation
derived from Aristotle's efficient causation).
* * *
In reply to Budd's statement, "Well, the meaning of the first premise
contains a noncausality claim", Stuart wrote [2010-04-26 - #5449]:
>The first premise: "Computer programs are syntactical (formal)". Note
>the verb "are". It denotes an identity relation (or, another
>possibility, a predicate relation). It certainly doesn't denote a
>causal relation. If it did it would say "cannot cause" or some such ...
it is true that, when a statement uses the verb 'to be', we can often
decide what type of claim it makes by trying to determine the sense of
'is' that is being used in the statement.
what sense of 'is' does Dennett use to say 'the mind is the brain'?
clearly we can dismiss the possibility that the 'is' in Dennett's
statement denotes a causal relation. hence, Dennett is saying something
very different from what Searle says ('the mind is caused by the brain'
--- Axiom 4 put in the passive voice).
is Dennett using the is of identity? possibly. there is a school of
thought known as the mind-brain identity theory, MBI, which says just
that.
is Dennett using the is of constitution? possibly.
is Dennett using the is of causation? no. there is no is of causation.
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
