[Wittrs] Re: Is Computation too Static to Sustain a Mind?
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 14 Aug 2010 00:54:45 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gabuddabout" <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
> Well I'm going to have to disabuse you of a presupposition here.
> A science of psychology is perfectly compatible with a BP explanation
of consciousness.
I'm intrigued with your position because in my 40 yrs around
psychologists (not certain philosophers) I don't believe I've
encountered your position. So let's see...
> Having concepts is going to be parasitic on having a BP story
Words like "parasitic" and "story" don't sound scientific. In fact, I
don't know how to read them
> As Fodor puts it, meaning may be (and some insist should be)
something to do with states of nervous systems.
"Something to do" is vague enough to mean virtually anything. Obviously,
no brain, no concepts. But also, no two people, no marriage, but what
one can say about a marriage can't be said about either person. A man
and a woman don't cause a marriage. Though their presence is a necessary
condition. By the same token, a brain is a necessary condition for
concepts.
Can one argue that a necessary condition is a cause without actually
demonstrating how the cause leads to the effect? Shouldn't the cause
connect with the effect? Stuart argues that brain is more than a
condition, a cause, but doesn't feel compelled to show the continuity
between the cause and effect. You seem to have a different idea...
> It will be a form of synchronic causation. An example would be
gravity causing the chair to stay seated on the floor.
Does that work? Gravity is the concept we apply to observations in which
objects behave such and such. Gravity doesn't cause. The causal account
is in terms of molecules interacting in accordance with certain laws.
Are you imagining a law of physics which will tell us when the molecules
of brain generate a concept? How would you state the relationship
between brain molecules and concept? And where would you place the
person in relation to the concept?
None of this relationship stuff appears on the BP level.
bruce
"Responsible for" would/could be just another way of talking about
synchronic causation.
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
