[Wittrs] Molecular Motion Constitutes the Liquidity of Water
- From: Joseph Polanik <jpolanik@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 06:29:29 -0400
SWM wrote:
>Joseph Polanik wrote:
>>you say that Searle makes a claim of non-causation in the third axiom;
>>and, I agree that he does; but, I take that to mean causation in the
>>true sense (pertaining to the notion of cause and effect that
>>scientists use and that descends from Aristotle's category of
>>efficient causation).
>>my question is: when you say that Searle makes a claim of
>>non-causation do you have a different notion of causation in mind?
>I have offered an explanation many times here about how Searle uses
>"cause" with regard to water and wetness.
in such a case, the relation of constitution is dressed up in the
language of ersatz causation to solicit an ersatz identity.
>But I think Searle doesn't think in these terms when we get to the
>idea that brains do cause minds while computers don't! However, because
>he is vague on what brains actually do that is causal ...
no one knows how it happens that there is subjectivity and experience in
an otherwise insensate universe; so, of course, Searle is a little vague
on that point.
>After all, if he once recognized that his claim of causality for
>water's wetness might apply, he would not find it so easy to blithely
>blow off the possibility that the CR is underspecked and that that's
>the real problem with his argument.
how do you distinguish true ('cause and effect') causation from the
ersatz causation (aka 'constitution') --- or, can you?
Joe
--
Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
http://what-am-i.net
@^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
==========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
