[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: Glen Sizemore <gmsizemore2@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2009 19:50:01 -0700 (PDT)
--- On Thu, 8/13/09, Stuart W. Mirsky <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx> wrote:
From: Stuart W. Mirsky <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
Subject: [Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
To: Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thursday, August 13, 2009, 10:10 PM
--- In Wittrs@yahoogroups. com, 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?
> There are, of course, two related problems here: the first is that it is
> nonsense to say that the mind does things that a person is said to do; this
> is language taking a holiday. The second problem is that there is the
> implication that the "mind doing things" is somehow an explanation of people
> doing things. There are those here that really want to say that "mental
> states" are the cause of behavior; mental "possessions like "intentions" are
> the cause of the behavior that we label "intentional. " These are the same
> sorts of people that want to say that Wittgenstein is an "operationalist. "
> That is, his focus on actual behavioral episodes is really saying that the
> observable behavior is an "indication" of the "real" issue, which is
the
> mental intention. When Wittgenstein says that "meaning is use," he does not
> mean that use is an "indication" of some mental possession called "meaning"
> that is somehow the cause of the utterance. Wittgenstein is often quite clear
> about the cause of an utterance; in several places he actually uses the term
> "training." Our social training (of course a Skinnerian view would go farther
> and say exactly what is meant by "training" - in this sense behaviorism
> extends Wittgenstein) ) is the cause of utterances. He is not saying that
> training "deposits" meanings in our mind or our brain and this "deposit" is
> then the "real cause" of our utterances. Yet, this is exactly the implication
> of what has been suggested by some members of this group. It does not matter
> that they turn around and say "that is not what I am really saying." Ask
> yourself this: "Does the brain cause behavior?" If you answer "yes," then you
> are a mentalist, and a dualist. It is TRAINING that
> causes behavior. The brain somehow mediates this function, and it does so in
> largely unknown ways.
>
SWM: Do we have a mental life or not? By "mental life" I mean mental images,
thoughts, memories, beliefs, sensations, etc.
GS: It is telling that you put "memories" and "beliefs" in the same category as
the others. Think about that. But I have answered the question above many
times, yet you have not answered any of the questions that I put forth. So I
will ask this" "Does the brain cause behavior?" What is your answer?
SWM: When we sleep do we dream? When we're awake can we daydream? When we're
not paying attention to our immediate surroundings but lost in thought, are
there mental things going on? When we meditate do we run the risk of being lost
in our own thoughts? Do we have minds or is the word "mind" a misnomer, a
non-starter or simply another word for "brain"? (I'll leave the discussion of
what dualism is to a later stage assuming we reach it.) Thanks. -- SWM
GS: You have not answered any of my questions, but in this post, I asked only
one. Most of what you asked me I have already commented on rather extensively,
and I am surprized that you ask me the same questions again. And I am doubly
puzzled that you ask me if the mind is simply another name for the brain! My
answer is that, given what I wrote above(!), "You claim it is!"
Cordially,
Glen
Other related posts:
