[Wittrs] Re: SWM on causation
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 04:03:43 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote:
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
> > Is the changing itself an entity? Of course not. But it's real
> > AND it's physical no less than the thing that has turned.
>
> "Changing" isn't physical. "Changing" is a our concept for what is
> happening in the physical realm. But now I see why you want to call it
> "physical" because you need a category for something real, physical, and
> yet not tangible. Well, how about the physical forces.
>
If "physical forces" it's physical. Every physical thing is not an object!
This just shows how much of our disagreement lies in the way we use our words.
Of course change is physical. It's a shift in physical phenomena, etc. It's
certainly not a matter of spirits!
> Is consciousness something like the strong force that keeps a atom
> together? We posit such forces to explain what happens in cyclotron. We
> posit consciousness to explain how a human being behaves.
>
Yes, I can live with that. It's a way of speaking about this. Certainly
consciousness isn't an entity, isn't like a physical object. But I have been
saying this for five lists now.
> Now, if consciousness is comparable to a physical force, consciousness
> ought to work according to the laws of physics. Which is to say, without
> intention or purpose. Are you comfortable with that?
>
>
> bruce
As I note to Neil nearby, where he wants to say adaptation is a feature of
certain kinds of systems, like living organisms and, in this, it differs from
causal operations, the mistake is in presuming that it makes sense to carry the
feature we see at our level down to levels that underpin it. Consciousness is
exactly what it appears on our level of operation though this is to say nothing
of how it comes about. And this means you cannot explain how it comes about by
reference to its appearance at our level. At our level we have intentions and
purpose. That doesn't mean that the underlying processes that constitute every
instance of intention and purpose are themselves intentional and purposeful.
There is no sense in arguing that consciousness works at our level according to
the laws of physics even if it is the outcome of undergirding physical
phenomena that work "according to the laws of physics".
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
