[C] [Wittrs] Re: The Epiphenomenalism of Dennett-Consistent Philosophies of Consciousness
- From: Sean Wilson <whoooo26505@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Mon, 1 Feb 2010 14:28:25 -0800 (PST)
(J and Justin)
I was going to say something similar, but more along these lines:
"2a) A description of the motion of particles is not a description of
awareness"
It could be, in a SENSE of talking (about awareness). What sense we give to
"awareness" or "physical" seems to dispel any philosophical problem here. Once
the sense of the words is understood, it seems then to only be a matter of
whether the information (facts) is (or is not) what it is said to be (or what
it may be down the line, for those who are prognosticating).
And this was the only real thing that concerned me: of what value is it for
analytic philosophers to bring out "logic premises" that deploy family
resemblance ideas? Physics, physical, awareness, motions and particles are all
family-resemblance ideas. For one to think that you can "move the earth"
by plugging them into a logical arrangement of statements would seem to suggest
that they are fixed quantities. Can one do math upon a family? Notice what
happens to the format:
1a) We have agreed to describe "awareness" [note the quotes] as "physical"
in a sense of talking.
1b) It is the job of "physics" [note the quotes] to describe a sense
of "physical."
1c) Therefore, "physics" should describe the sense of awareness in 1a)
[DOESN'T FOLLOW].
2a) A description of the motion of particles is not a description of
"awareness" in any sense of talking. [NOT TRUE].
2b) "Physics" is only a description of the motion of particles. (Using a
version of classical physics as a first order approximation)
2c) Therefore "physics" does not describe the sense of awareness in 1a. [THIS
COULD BE MEANINGFUL]
1c) "Physics" should describe the sense of awareness in 1a [WHY??]
2c) "Physics" does not describe the sense of awareness in 1a
3c) Physics needs to be modified to include a description of the sense of
awareness in 1a [WHY???].
Hail to Wittgenstein.
Dr. Sean Wilson, Esq.
Assistant Professor
Wright State University
Personal Website: http://seanwilson.org
SSRN papers: http://ssrn.com/author=596860
Discussion Group: http://seanwilson.org/wittgenstein.discussion.html
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
