[Wittrs] Constitution vs Causation
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 08 May 2010 14:23:15 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>SWM wrote:
>>>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>In reply to Budd's statement, "Well, the meaning of the first premise
>>contains a noncausality claim", Stuart wrote [2010-04-26 - #5449]:
>>>The first premise: "Computer programs are syntactical (formal)". Note
>>>the verb "are". It denotes an identity relation (or, another
>>>possibility, a predicate relation). It certainly doesn't denote a
>>>causal relation. If it did it would say "cannot cause" or some such
>>>...
>>it is true that, when a statement uses the verb 'to be', we can often
>>decide what type of claim it makes by trying to determine the sense of
>>'is' that is being used in the statement.
>>what sense of 'is' does Dennett use to say 'the mind is the brain'?
>>clearly we can dismiss the possibility that the 'is' in Dennett's
>>statement denotes a causal relation.
>No we can't. The fact that he doesn't use "cause" is irrelevant to the
>point at issue. It's a matter of word choice, nothing more. Few people
>speak in the exact same way. The issue is to find what they have in
>mind, not try to apply some external and arbitrary meaning, say
>Aristotle's, as a kind of absolute.
the issue does not concern using Aristotle as an external absolute. the
issue concerns the internal consistency of your claims.
just a few days ago, in reply to Budd (see above) you noted that the
verb to be [are] could denote an identity or a predicate relation; but,
that it "certainly doesn't denote a causal relation". now, in your last
post in this thread, you claim that the verb to be [is] does denote a
causal relation.
>>hence, Dennett is saying something very different from what Searle
>>says ('the mind is caused by the brain' --- Axiom 4 put in the passive
>>voice).
>>is Dennett using the is of identity? possibly. there is a school of
>>thought known as the mind-brain identity theory, MBI, which says just
>>that.
>>is Dennett using the is of constitution? possibly.
>>is Dennett using the is of causation? no. there is no is of causation.
>I should have followed my instinct and ignored this one!
do you have any instinct which tells you that, if the verb to be
"certainly doesn't denote a causal relation" when Searle uses it; then,
it also "certainly doesn't denote a causal relation" when Dennett uses
it?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
