[Wittrs] Re: Understanding Dualism
- From: "iro3isdx" <xznwrjnk-evca@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:53:31 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> responding to http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Wittrs/message/6208
> SWM:
> Then on what grounds do you think that computationalists are
> uninterested in the processes which collect and deliver information
> about the world to the processor?
That I was booted from the ai-philosophy group for discussing the input
question might perhaps be relevant grounds.
> SWM:
> Is your concern with THAT distinction?
Both of your "kinds of information" miss the mark.
> SWM:
> Dualism is the supposition that there must be something other than
> purely physical processes underlying mental occurrences. If you think
> "Whether or not computation is physical is of no importance here"
> then where is the dualism you are opposing?
I am not particularly hung up on "dualism". Contrary to a comment you
made in a response to Bruce, I am not making an argument against
dualism. Rather, I am making an argument against a particular way that
people think about the mind, and I used the term "dualism" because I
see that kind of thinking as what leads to dualism.
> SWM:
> Your statement above leaves "intentionality" unexplicated.
What is it about philosophers? The basis for intentionality is staring
them in the face, but they seem quite unable to see it even when it is
pointed out.
> SWM:
> I suspect you'll say that it's in the fact of perception itself,
> i.e., that perceiving is perceiving something which qualifies it
> as being about something. I'm not sure, however, that that is a
> fair account. To think about anything need not require perception.
To the contrary, thinking is closely connected to perception.
Regards,
Neil
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
