[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "blroadies" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 15 Aug 2009 18:09:18 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@...> wrote:
On Bruce's notion of "dependent dualism."
>
> GS: What it is is a way to maintain the tired old epistemology while
escaping the embarrassment of positing a nonphysical stuff.
Right! No non-physical stuff. But then what is the status of nonphysical
accounts, e.h., "I feel..."
> As Skinner was fond of saying, the problem with "mental" explanations
is not that they are mental, but that they are not explanations.
Depends, doesn't it? Reasons work. "Why did you fall asleep? " "Because
I wanted to rest." But a reason may not explain. "Hold on, you fell
asleep while driving." To explain this behavior, we need a cause.
bruce
Other related posts:
