--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote: > I think that at this point this is about ways of talking and not much else. I agree. Nothing empirical is at issue. Neither of us are gathering or interpreting data. We differ on "how to talk about the relation between brain and mind" and the difference has critical clinical consequences that I face every day. A patient of mine related this: A psychiatrist told him that his anxiety "may" be caused by his brain chemistry and that he was helpless to do anything about it. His psychiatrist obviously has a partial causal model and some notion of self that functions free of the brain. Does your causal model fare any better? > The constituent elements work together, in a system, to produce X. In this case X is subjectivity, subjective experience. So you would tell my patient that all of his experiences, including his anxieties, are caused by his brain chemistry. What if he then said: "Your arrogance in thinking you know the source of my anxiety so angers me that I no longer feel anxious, but pissed. How does you causal model explain the shift in mood? I say it can't because while you speak of "subjectivity", you treat it as a thing, a phenomena, like a light of burning candle wick. The candle doesn't know its burning. But my patient knows he is (was) anxious. Your model has subjectivity without a subject. It also has intentions which are not intentions, but causes. > Something causes what we call intentionality in us. This is true for a voice activated GPS. Asking it where you are, causes it to give location. Would you say the same account holds for your wife sitting next to you. She may think she intends to help but, in fact, your brain has made sound waves that cause her brain to make sound waves. What we call a person's intention is nothing more and hence we are fools to believe in the ordinary notion of good and bad intentions. bruce ========================================= Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/