[Wittrs] Re: The Epiphenomenalism of Dennett-Consistent Philosophies of Consciousness
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 2010 22:10:44 -0000
I'm guessing this is addressed to me?
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Justintruth <wittrsamr@...> wrote:
>
> I want to state as clearly as I can why I think a new physical
> principle is required if we are to call awareness physical:
>
> 1a) We have agreed to describe my awareness as physical.
> 1b) It is the job of physics to describe what we agree to call
> physical.
> 1c) Therefore physics should describe my awareness.
>
The point I want to make is that a causal description looks like it is
achievable without invoking a new principle or the need for one. Other kinds of
description, such as talk of motivations in terms of feelings, intentions,
beliefs, etc. aren't relevant to this kind of description though they do
necessitate a different level of discourse. But the fact that there are
multiple levels of discourse doesn't imply a need for one to completely subsume
the other.
> 2a) A description of the motion of particles is not a description of
> awareness.
> 2b) Physics is only a description of the motion of particles. (Using a
> version of classical physics as a first order approximation)
> 2c) Therefore physics does not describe my awareness.
>
The issue is not to describe it but to account for it causally. A different
question.
> 1c) Physics should describe my awareness
No, or at least not on the view I am espousing. There is no obvious need for it
to do so. However, it (or an appropriately derived form of discourse) should be
able to describe the causal relation by which your awareness happens in the
world.
> 2c) Physics does not describe my awareness
> 3c) Physics needs to be modified to include a description of
> awareness.
>
> Which statement(s) do you disagree with?
>
Specified above.
> I note that you have recommended that I read some things.
> ==========================================
>
Only if you want to. Before your joining us there was a long history of
discussions here relating to these issues among many of the listees. But they
are often repetitive and interminable so I'm not sure you would even want to go
back and delve into the past, or that it would pay, given how many words have
been written. If you choose to continue with the present discussion, I will try
to be explicit enough so that backtracking to prior posts will not be
necessary, at least where my own remarks are at issue. However, should you feel
unusually ambitious and want to read past posts, I would never prevent you. But
I wouldn't do it myself!
SWM
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
