[Wittrs] Re: SWM's sense physical
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2009 03:11:32 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "BruceD" <blroadies@...> wrote:
>
> Glorious T day to you.
>
> --- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@> wrote:
>
> > What is "physical in nature"?
>
> Objects that exist in space-time and forces that account for these
> objects. These objects need not be perceived directly, e.g., quarks,
> dark matter, but can be shown to impact the macro, causally. Experiences
> do fit this definition and, hence, aren't physical, though, they are
> natural, i.e., describe how we are.
>
Huh??? You just answered my question as to what is "physical in nature" by
saying, among other things, that "experiences do fit this definition." THEN you
conclude by saying but they "aren't physical, though, they are natural". So you
contradict yourself!
Anyway, the point is clearly that experience is not an object nor does it
consist of objects in any observable sense. Of course we can speak of
experience as an object of reference but, plainly, that is not equivalent to a
physical object. Still that does not preclude their being understood as derived
from the physical universe, and, thus, being seen as being PART of the physical
universe which is to say as being physical in THAT sense.
Round and round and round we go, eh?
> > do brains produce minds or are they just somehow co-existent with
> minds?
>
> That question shows our difference. I can't ask it. Why? Because minds
> aren't produced in the sense that other bodily products are
No one says they are and I certainly don't! Why do you have such a problem
seeing that I am not saying any such thing? Can't you see any other sense of
the word "produce" than this rather rigid one you keep coming back to (as you
do with "cause")?
There are lots of ways things are produced. When I type out a response to you
on my keyboard I am producing it. When I crack a joke I can sometimes produce a
smile on my wife's face (though not too often as we don't share a common sense
of humor in most things).
>and minds
> don't exist in the space time sense.
I don't know what THAT means. If you mean they aren't physical objects
(entities with observable physical characteristics) I agree with you. But I
have always agreed with that point. I never said ANYTHING different!
Nevertheless, I will not go from there to saying minds don't exist in any
physical sense (because they are obviously existentially dependend on a
physical platform) or that they exist in some other domain, some other
metaphysical arena! Minds depend on and exist as an expression of the physical
and thus are part and parcel of the physical universe. Given this, there is no
reason to think we cannot speak of minds being produced by (or caused by)
brains of a certain type doing certain things.
Have you read the Dehaene stuff yet? Might do you some good.
> A C-fiber fires. A person says
> "ouch." Some say the fiber caused pain. I say the fiber caused an
> electrical discharge, period. But the person who sensed the discharge
> might have experienced it as pain, pleasure, or nothing at all. There
> can't be a causal relation when the effect is so problematic
>
Read Dehaene. I am really tired of going over the same ground here ad
infinitum. If you don't get it from what I have said maybe you will from what
he says. If not, maybe it's because you don't want to.
SWM
>
> Something weird is happening with my computer...so I'll stop here and
> try to pick it up in up in the next Post.
>
> bruce
=========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
