[Wittrs] Re: SWM's sense physical
- From: "BruceD" <blroadies@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: wittrsamr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 26 Nov 2009 23:38:48 -0000
--- In Wittrs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "SWM" <SWMirsky@...> wrote:
> Note that I have not said minds are "physical in nature", only that
they are derived from,
the physical. So, does that mean that this derivative -- we call mental
-- is another type of substance? If so, we differ strongly. Also, I
believe you hold that mind is best described in an intentional language
game. If so, how do you reconcile the causality of matter with the
purposive nature of this derivative substance?
> The reason the mind-body problem dissolves is because mind is not
ontologically separate from the physical
> but a part of the physical universe on this view.
True for you, perhaps, but not for everyone because there is still the
problem of causal matter and intentional mind and the terrible problem
of specifying the particulars of causality. I don't have that problem
since I don't see why we should expect a causal relationship between two
such radically different language games.
> physiological markers that all, simultaneously, show a massive change
when a person
> reports becoming aware of a piece of information (say a word, a digit
or a sound).
I'm familiar with the work. Very interesting. Note "simultaneously",
i.e., correlation not necessarily causation. More importantly, the work
depends upon a "person reporting." Where is the person in the causal
chain. I read this work as showing us how we use our brains. No
different from how we use our fingers. In any event, the person is not
part of the physical account.
>It is your insistence on it being "something so different" that counts
as dualism.
Well, would you use the same concepts to describe a brain firing as you
do to describe a person making a report. Just how non-dualistic are you
and your researcher.
> The only "dualism" is in your mistaken insistence on thinking that
minds and brains are fundamentally distinct and co-existent
Again, for me minds don't exist in the same sense that brains exist. So
"co-exist" makes no sense. Minds and brain are fundamentally distinct
the way an dream of a turkey differs from the one dying to get to my
table. That is, they are conceptually distinct.
> The point is to determine the best way of understanding mind.
Agreed!
> If the "conventional" way is via a dualist picture, requiring either a
positing of extra things in the universe
But the conventional way need not posit any extra thing,
> or a disallowance of the discussion (and the science)
A rejection of causal accounts is not a rejection of science that
includes much more than causality.
> presuming dualism violates Occam's Razor
your derivative sense of mind as substance violates OR. I add no
substances.
> Look, nowhere have I said the brain is itself a conscious entity.
I stand corrected. If I think I'm reading that in your Post, I'll
immediately say so. OK. Are people conscious entities?
> The brain's operations, what it does, are the cause or source of the
consciousness
My brain causes me to be conscious. When I become conscious, do I have
control over my thoughts or is everything I think and feel simply a
causal end-product of brain activity?
Again and again, no one here doubts that the brain, not the toe, is the
means by which we become self-aware. The problem is making sense of the
connection between brain events and mind. The way you describe the
relationship, we are passive . Remember. Water molecules cause us to
feel wet. They start a chain reaction from skin to brain and we
experience wetness. Under this description our relationship to our brain
is the same as our relationship to the environment. Everything simply
happens to us. And indeed it is true, in many cases. A stroke victim, of
a burst brain blood vessel or of prolonged exposure to heat, is a victim
of what has happened to him.
But not all stroke victims (of any kind) react the same. That is why
your researcher needs a person to report. Any useful account of brain
and mind must begin with a person who is neither brain nor mind. And
don't be telling me that I've introduced a new substance. A person isn't
a substance. Not all nouns are substances.
bruce
=========================================
Manage Your AMR subscription: //www.freelists.org/list/wittrsamr
For all your Wittrs needs: http://ludwig.squarespace.com/wittrslinks/
Other related posts:
