[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "blroadies" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Aug 2009 19:58:02 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@...> wrote:
> > Say one has a text that says things like "the mind sees,"
> > or "the mind understands" or "the mind makes decisions"
> > etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Now, one simply substitutes the word
> > "brain" for "mind." Is one thereby NOT a dualist?
Yes, without question. But, in this context, the folks here that I've
been talking with over the years, well, at least for some, this is a
(I'll coin a term) a "dependent dualism" in the sense that (if I read
them correctly) mind stands is causally dependent upon brain. Nothing
about or in mind that isn't prior in brain, and, hence, "mind" is of no
different substance or matter, amounts, perhaps, to just another way of
talking about brain.
Moreover, the popular alternative, the one typically attributed to me,
is a "substance dualism." Which is to say that the starting point for a
physicalistic analysis is positing a substance. I don't start there. But
that's another matter.
bruce
Other related posts:
