[Wittrs] Re: SWM: A tale of two stances
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Jan 2010 01:45:35 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> Dennett's view is there is no special entity called "intention",
Who holds that an act (taking a stance) is an entity. Two questions. Who
takes a stance? In what sense can a stance be caused.
> What is an "aware self" in your lexicon?
What everyone else means by the term, a person who freely acts on the
basisw of reasons, in part. In contrast to a mechanical thing (like the
brain) which doesn't reason any more than my big toe, as you are fond of
saying. Apparently Dennett wants to shift the meaning. Can he?
> The Dennettian model is suggesting that it is just the interplay of
certain functionalities in the brain.
Claiming that the brain is vital for taking a stance may (or may not)
shift the meaning. I'm comfortale with "I use my brain to reason", just
as I use my hands to play the piano. But that is not your use.
> As a result of these a self is generated...
which means all that I think and do is produced by prior causes in the
physical sense you go on to say. I've asked, and I'll see if you get to
it, do you freely choose to see your self as caused by your brain?
> But there is no dissonance between a claim that a conscious self is
physically derived
> and a claim that intentionality, understood as part of a conscious
self, is a matter of imputation
Right! Completely consonant. You can say of others, if you choose, that
there so-called free intentionality is a myth and, as been suggested by
another Post, they are simply products of programming. But can you say
that of yourself?
> But I treat you as a creature with an inner life, a mental life, on a
par with my own,
Did you choose to think this or was it caused by your brain? And how can
you tell the difference? If one can't, the Dennett's model of brain
causation is indeterminanat.
> Since I don't take a "causal stance" toward you or other creatures
like us,
You don't think of my mental life as caused by my brain activity?
> Nothing about the model of mind I have been explaining here implies
that I must, to be consistent,
> treat you or myself as automata, without real minds, without the
ability to make choices, etc.
Really? You have a mind, in the ordinary sense, ability to reason, make
choices, and yet all this is caused by brain activity. That which is
freely done is caused? Where else in the physical world does this
happen? Does the sun refuse to rise?
As I've suggested before. Dennett's dread of spirit entities in the
skull has prompted him to attribute to the brain, a real physical thing,
if you will, all that others attribute to mind, making choices, etc. but
then cover his tracks by talking about causation -- which upon
examination bears little resemblence to physical causation.
bruce
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
