[lit-ideas] Re: The location of location

  • From: Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: lit-ideas@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2015 18:15:34 +0100

I thought that Kant wrote a big book to argue that space and time are not
necessarily properties of the physical world but categories through which
our miind organizes the world... or something like that. Hasn't Grice heard
anything about that ?


On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 5:34 PM, Omar Kusturica <omarkusto@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If something changes over time - as both mind and knowledge do - then it
> exists in time. It shouldn't even be necessary to make such an obvious
> point.
> Descartes' mind is obviously burdened with left-overs from Christian soul,
> which is supposed to be eternal.
> O.K.
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 1:27 PM, Redacted sender Jlsperanza@xxxxxxx for
> DMARC <dmarc-noreply@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> In a message dated 1/26/2015 2:08:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
>> donalmcevoyuk@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>> I agree it would appear contradictory to  argue (1) pain belongs to W2 but
>> (2) that pain also is located within the W1  brain and (3) W2 is located
>> in
>> a way distinct to anything located in W1 [i.e. W2  events, like conscious
>> pain, do not share the identical spatio-temporal location  of any W1
>> events].
>> I also agree that there is a large and unresolved problem  as to the
>> 'location' of consciousness, and thus of W2. I would also agree there  is
>> a large
>> and unresolved problem as to the 'location' of W3 or W3 contents. But
>> these
>> admittedly large and unresolved problems are far from conclusive arguments
>> against the independence of W2 and of W3 from W1.
>> I don't intend to suggest  a solution to these large problems but here
>> clarify that Popper's position is  that W3 "exists but exists nowhere"
>> and that
>> W2 is located not within W1 but  somehow adjacent to the W1 brain.
>> It seems that we have no obvious model for  locating anything in space and
>> time except in the way we seek to locate W1  objects within W1: and this
>> creates an admitted problem, for there is a lack of  any clear model for
>> how we
>> 'locate' W2 or W3 in these terms.
>> Despite this, it  seems overwhelmingly the case that consciousness exists;
>> and though it is less  overwhelming, the strong case is that consciousness
>> is distinct from being a  mere W1 process - for there is no analogue of
>> consciousness in any W1 processes  as these are conceived by science.
>> So we quickly reach one of the immense  and weird imponderables of the
>> mind-body problem, that have given rise to very  different reactions -
>> including
>> that radical materialism, a la Quine, that takes  consciousness to be
>> merely an illusion. But if consciousness is not simply an  illusion, the
>> mind-body dichotomy surfaces in all its presently unsolvable
>> strangeness. There is
>> no present possible position without strangeness - the  radical
>> materialist,
>> in denying consciousness, is one of the strangest. Against  the
>> strangeness
>> of these alternative positions [e.g. panpsychism] it might seem  less
>> strange to accept the admitted strangeness of accepting a W3 and a W2 that
>> cannot readily be 'located', and certainly not 'located' in W1 terms.
>> It  seems simpler to postulate that space-time belongs in w1 only?
>> There's  the physical world, and space and time are physical 'concepts' or
>> entities or  items.
>> w2 is the world of thinking.
>> Palma:
>> "Note that, if  Descartes were right, thought can’t have extension
>> properties, such as temporal  properties."
>> The implicature is that Descartes ain't right?
>> If an  item in the world of 'psychology' has spatio-temporal
>> qualifications, it seems  to me because it 'corresponds' in some way to
>> some item in the
>> physical world,  which necessarily does.
>> w3, the world of concepts and stuff surely does  not require on the other
>> hand any sort of Cartesian spatio-temporal coordinate.  But surely the
>> CONTENT of a book on space and time (such as Einstein's) belongs  in this
>> 'third
>> reich', as Popper's predecessor also called it.
>> Cheers,
>> Speranza
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
>> digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html

Other related posts: