[Wittrs] Re: Molecular Motion Constitutes the Liquidity of Water
- From: "SWM" <SWMirsky@xxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 12 May 2010 12:17:54 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Joseph Polanik <jPolanik@...> wrote:
>
> SWM wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >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.
>
The allegation of "ersatz" is specious. Words are what they do, they mean what
they mean based on how they are used and have ranges of uses (that is,
meanings). [See Wittgenstein's notion of meaning as use, family resemblances,
etc.]
There is not a one-to-one relation between a word and some fixed, immutable
concept that it is said to mean or represent (except insofar as we stipulate to
such -- and then that stipulation reflects a decision to narrow the use for a
particular purpose).
Noting that we use words like "cause", "constitutes" and "same as" (identity)
in different and often overlapping ways is not to engage in ersatz anything but
to use our words as we normally do in language.
> >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.
>
Of course. And that vagueness allows Searle to miss the contradiction in what
he says of brains and what he says of computers. Others (researchers and
theorists both) are not so vague, even if they have yet to establish the truth
of their particular claims in any uncontestable fashion.
> >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?
>
There is no "true" cause and effect, only what we mean in the particular
contexts in which we are deploying our terms. Once the meanings are ascertained
and made clear, discourse can continue. A failure to be clear, on the other
hand, or an effort to obscure, will tend to derail discourse, of course.
SWM
> Joe
>
>
> --
>
> Nothing Unreal is Self-Aware
>
> @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
> http://what-am-i.net
> @^@~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~@^@
>
>
> ==========================================
>
> Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
>
=========================================
Need Something? Check here: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
