[Wittrs] Re: When is "brain talk" really dualism?
- From: "Cayuse" <z.z7@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 20 Aug 2009 23:07:31 +0100
Bruce wrote:
> Cayuse wrote:
>> The point is that we can't assume that it's generated.
>
> Being aware that we are drunk. Why can' we speak of it as being
> "generated?" My reluctance is to say "the brain did it" when, to all
> appearances, my drinking and my reaction to the drinking is what did
> it. SWM acknolwedges that the person is drunk but the sense of the
> drunk is caused by the brain. The places the brain outside the person,
> so to speak because a cause has to be separate from its effect
Stuart is using the word consciousness to refer to a certain category
of phenomena arising as part of what I'm calling the contents of
consciousness. There are two different language games in play here
that both employ the word consciousness. Phenomena (contents)
enter into all sorts of relations with each other, and it is nothing
unusual to speak of one such phenomenon being generated or caused
by another. The feeling of drunkenness is caused by drinking alcohol.
But my point doesn't apply to Stuart's use of the word, it applies to the
entirety of that "content" in toto (what one might want to refer to as the
"first-person perspective"). It's not possible to "stand outside of" that
"first-person perspective" and view it from the outside, so how would it be
possible to justify any claim that it is (or indeed that it isn't) "generated"?
Other related posts:
