[Wittrs] Re: Mind´s role in science, and mental terms in causal statements

  • From: "swmaerske" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
  • To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 14:29:33 -0000

--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "gerardoprim" <gerardoprim@...> wrote:
>
> (Stuart) Remove the brain or destroy it in the skull, Gerardo, and the mind 
> is gone. Poof. Just like that.
> (Gerardo) True, but irrelevant. This is an evidence of existential 
> dependence, not of causal relation in its usual scientific sense.
> 

I've already explained, numerous times, the sense in which I am using "causal" 
and why it is perfectly appropriate. There is no point in demanding a 
particular meaning when you know 1) precisely how I am using it and 2) that I 
am fully prepared to use another term if we can agree on it.

Here are some meanings of the term reflecting various on-line dictionary, wiki 
and encyclopedia sites:  

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/causal

causal
One entry found.
Main Entry: caus·al  
Pronunciation: \&#712;ko&#775;-z&#601;l\ 
Function: adjective 
Date: circa 1530
1 : expressing or indicating cause : causative <a causal clause introduced by 
since>
2 : of, relating to, or constituting a cause <the causal agent of a disease>
3 : involving causation or a cause <the relationship?was not one of causal 
antecedence so much as one of analogous growth ? H. O. Taylor>
4 : arising from a cause <a causal development>



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causality

The philosophical treatment of causality extends over millennia. In the Western 
philosophical tradition, discussion stretches back at least to Aristotle, and 
the topic remains a staple in contemporary philosophy. Aristotle distinguished 
between accidental (cause preceding effect in time) and essential causality, 
which has one event seen in two ways. Aristotle's example of essential 
causality is a builder building a house. This single event can be analyzed into 
the builder building (cause) and the house being built (effect).[2][unreliable 
source?]


[I WANT TO CALL YOUR ATTENTION, SPECIFICALLY, TO THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT -- the 
caps in the words below have been provided by me to emphasize what is relevant 
to my point!]

Though cause and effect are typically related to events, candidates include 
OBJECTS, PROCESSES, properties, variables, facts, and states of affairs; which 
of these make up the causal relata, and how best to characterize the 
relationship between them, remains under discussion.

According to Sowa (2000),[3] up until the twentieth century, three assumptions 
described by Max Born in 1949 were dominant in the definition of causality:

[AND AGAIN TO THIS ONE]

"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the OCCURRENCE of an entity 
B of a certain class DEPENDS ON THE OCCURRENCE of an entity A of another class, 
where the word entity means any PHYSICAL OBJECT, PHENOMENON, situation, or 
event. A is called the cause, B the effect. 

"Antecedence postulates that the cause must be prior to, or at least 
simultaneous with, the effect. 

"Contiguity postulates that cause and effect must be in spatial contact or 
connected by a chain of intermediate things in contact." (Born, 1949, as cited 
in Sowa, 2000) 

However, according to Sowa (2000), "relativity and quantum mechanics have 
forced physicists to abandon these assumptions as exact statements of what 
happens at the most fundamental levels, but they remain valid at the level of 
human experience."[3]

[YOU CAN ALSO EXAMINE THE ENTRIES OFFERED HERE]

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/causation-process/


  


> (Stuart) I call this kind of strong correlation evidence of a causal 
> relation. However, I readily grant we use "cause" in a number of different 
> ways. I use "cause", as in "brains cause minds", to reflect this strong 
> correlation between brains and minds. I use it, in fact, in precisely the way 
> Searle does when he says of the wetness of water that it is caused by the 
> molecular behavior of H2O molecules under certain conditions.
> (Gerardo) I clearly stated that I was talking about the scientific sense of 
> the term.


And I clearly stated what I was talking about and why it was appropriate to 
speak of brains in this way! Note that my usage accords with what is provided 
above. (See, especially, the capitalized terms in the information provided.)


> Of course, you can find many examples of more imprecise usages from Searle 
> and from other people.


Ordinary language is not necessarily "imprecise" (though it may sometimes be 
and often is in certain specialized circumstances). However, it should be 
recalled that ordinary language precedes all technical uses which are defined 
in terms of ordinary language. 

Ordinary language is the lingua franca of general communication which is what 
we are using here, by the way. As Wittgenstein showed, it is much more robust 
and multidimensional for the purpose of communication than specialized jargons 
qua ideal languages. Our job when speaking is to say clearly what we mean and 
avoid the pitfalls of ambiguity through such specification. This is not best 
accomplished by speaking only in (specialized) tongues.

Searle is NOT being imprecise in his usage as you allege precisely BECAUSE he 
specifies what he means. One can argue that he has got his facts about water 
and wetness wrong but not that the usage is wrong because, if it's his own 
stipulated meaning he has told us what he has in mind, and, if it's in accord 
with other standard usages, then he is in good company. AS IT HAPPENS, IT IS IN 
ACCORD. Allow me to demonstrate:

From the wiki entry: 

". . . cause and effect are typically related to events, candidates include 
OBJECTS, PROCESSES . . ."

The brain is an object and also runs a mix of processes. If consciousness is 
seen as a process-based system, as I have repeatedly argued, then the relevant 
brain processes ARE the consciousness. Thus we can say the brain CAUSES 
consciousness.

If the brain processes are seen as causative of the mental events (another way 
of speaking when we are interested in the states of  being a subject, having a 
mind), then we can say what the brain  PRODUCES (or causes) those mental events 
in the subject, i.e., the mind. That is, the object (brain processes) cause the 
state of being a subject (the mental events we associate with being a mind). 

Also from wiki (again see above):

"Causality postulates that there are laws by which the OCCURRENCE of an entity 
B of a certain class DEPENDS ON THE OCCURRENCE of an entity A of another class, 
where the word entity means any PHYSICAL OBJECT, PHENOMENON, situation, or 
event. A is called the cause, B the effect."

Again, this is fully in accord with Searle's usage. So his usage is neither 
imprecise nor idiosyncratic.

I want to be very clear here because I seem to be repeating myself ad infinitum:

1) Ordinary or natural language precedes all specialized languages and jargons. 
(This means that specialized languages or jargons derive their meanings from 
ordinary or natural language.)

2) Ordinary or natural language consists of a wide variety of what Wittgenstein 
called language games which consists of varying rules of word usage depending 
on context, intent, etc. (This means that words in ordinary language have a 
certain ambiguity because they apply to a variety of language games, an 
ambiguity we sometimes have to delve into and remove, but it also means that 
ordinary language is therefore way more robust in terms of what it can 
communicate than specialized languages which aim to address very particular 
things in as unambiguous way as possible by distilling out more precise 
meanings.)

3) We are speaking ordinary language on this site even if occasionally some of 
us bring in some specialized terms.

When I specify what I mean and give reasons that is what I am doing. However, I 
have also said, repeatedly, that I am not wedded to any term. If we all want to 
replace "causes" with Quine's "gavagai", for instance, I'm good with that AS 
LONG AS WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT AS TO WHAT IS MEANT. However, for me to be in 
agreement this use of "gavagai" MUST denote the existentially dependent 
relation that I am speaking of when I say "brains cause minds".

So let's all agree to say "brains gavagai minds" if you want to. Or pick some 
other term. ONLY KNOW THAT WHAT I MEAN IS WHAT SEARLE DOES WHEN HE SAYS "brains 
cause minds".

AND WE KNOW WHAT SEARLE MEANS BECAUSE I HAVE SAID IT THOUSANDS OF TIMES 
ALREADY, IF WE COUNT THIS SITE AND THE ONES PRECEDING. That's what I mean in 
this case.       

There is no need to continue to quibble over words. I am glad to use another 
term if "cause" bothers you and some others here. But whatever other term we 
settle on will have to mean the same thing I mean when I use "cause" in the 
disputed way or I will NOT be able to participate in the agreed usage.

Of course, I think this problem really goes deeper or people would not get so 
exercised about it. I think there are some who just do not want to acknowledge 
the kind of relation between brains and minds that I am alluding to and are 
hiding their deeper disagreement behind this choice of word question. So let's 
move past it and see if we can't come to some kind of understanding about all 
this. 



 
> But my purpose is to increase the conceptual precision, not to decrease it, 
> so I wouldn´t follow Searle on this. Of course, you may have a completely 
> different purpose on this, and then it would be 
> clear the reason why we don´t agree.


Clarity is achieved by examining our uses and specifying our meanings. I have 
already told you why Searle's use is NOT lacking in precision.


> By the way, I described again my distinctions of types of mental terms hoping 
> that you could explain your thoughts or criticisms about them.
> 
> Regards,
> Gerardo.
>

I thought I had offered my criticisms twice already, no? All right, I'll try to 
find time to do it again.

SWM

Other related posts:

  1. Home
  2. wittrs
  3. Archive
  4. 08-2009