[Wittrs] Is Homeostasis caused or purposive?
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 02:57:15 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> Scientific research that has determined that our way of experiencing
the world in terms of how we think about it or perceive it is
affected...
in different ways dependent upon the part of the body affected Changes
in kidney functioning, the various glands, loss of limbs, weight changes
all are implicated in personality change. True, all these changes are
mediated in the brain.
But the critical question. Should we conceptualize all these bodily
changes as causing the personality, where the person is just the sum of
these causations, or should we conceptualize the person as the author of
the changes based on how he lives the changes he feels in his body?
The choice is between a mechanical or purposive model.
Now the world is physical...where physical refers...
> ...to the fact that the world consists of what we sometimes call
matter
> and that matter is not animate in most instances
and yet some instances. And in those instances, should we attribute
intention, purpose, and just the same physical laws we attribute to the
inanimate.
> Yes, we can look at the universe...and recognize
> that consciousness is just one of the phenomena found in the universe.
Note we agree that we attribute consciousness to certain entities found
in the universe. We don't literally look at C, the way we look at a
rock. Given that, C is not phenomena in the way atoms are.
> Then the question is whether it is part of the physical universe
One answer. It is part of our universe of experiences but not part of
our physical experiences. There are lots of experiences without a
physical reference. If this was not the case, we would not have the
concept "physical." The concept, like all concepts, has limits. If you
expand the concept to include everything, without distinction, the
concept becomes useless.
> Consciousness comes from the same underlying forces,
> principles, constituents the rest of the physical universe
but can it be explained by physics? Physicists don't try. You think
neurologists do. But I don't see them trying to show how C "comes from"
the brain. Nor do they explain C is strictly causal, mechanical terms.
They find correlations. And then they describe the brain (and the
person) with purpose (abandoning physics. This contradiction doesn't
bother them. They payoff is predicting outcomes, medical treatment, etc.
I think both of us are interested in clarity.
> The right behavior at one level (what the person does or says)
> or at another level (what the brain is actually doing).
But how do you relate the causal level to the purposive. That's the rub.
> the subjective dimension of what we mean by "consciousness".
Where is "subjectivity" and "what we mean" in physics?
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
