[Wittrs] Correction - Re: Causation, Identity, Constitutiveness and Sufficiency
- From: "gabuddabout" <gabuddabout@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 01 May 2010 20:44:44 -0000
You're a distraction, along with vast chunks of twentieth century
pseudo-philosophy.
And stop trying to channel me if you can't even read first.
Though I do agree with you that there is a noncausality claim in the third
premise. What the hell else does "insufficient for" mean if it is part of an
independent clause within one premise whose other independent clause is
supposed to be taken as a nonidentity claim = not constitutive of.
Think of constitutive rules, Searle style. Such serve to identify conditions
where some such actually is some such because of the constitutive rule--not
that the constitutive rule is here a stand-in for an efficient physical cause.
Wanna make a monkey of Searle? You're gonna have to do monkey shines!
Shine, shine, shine, ... you crazy diamonds!
Cheers,
Budd
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
