|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Date: Jan 27, 2008 15:38
"andy-k" wrote:
> By what criteria are phenomena (using that word as generally as possible)
> assigned to the categories of 'mental' and 'physical'?
Some interesting replies here, and much food for thought. Having pitched
the question I feel I should contribute my own view, which seems to have
something in common with a few of the remarks from other respondents.
I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here, but rather 'mental'
and 'physical' are words that one learns to apply according to the customs
of the linguistic community to which one belongs. It is the error of
reifying these adjectives into the substantive terms 'mind' and 'matter'
that leads to philosophical problems
-- i.e. it is an error to look for the
essential attributes of mind and of matter and then to conclude that the
two are incommensurable and cannot therefore interact with one another.
|
| |
|
| | 24 Comments |
|
|
Author: caseycasey Date: Jan 27, 2008 15:44
On Jan 28, 10:39 am, "andy-k" wrote:
> I don't think there are any hard and fast rules here, but rather 'mental'
> and 'physical' are words that one learns to apply according to the customs
> of the linguistic community to which one belongs. It is the error of
> reifying these adjectives into the substantive terms 'mind' and 'matter'
> that leads to philosophical problems -- i.e. it is an error to look for the
> essential attributes of mind and of matter and then to conclude that the
> two are incommensurable and cannot therefore interact with one another.
I don't think mind and matter interact, mind is something matter does.
--
jc
|
| |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jan 27, 2008 17:10
>
>andy-k wrote:
>
>By what criteria are phenomena (using
>that word as generally as possible)
>assigned to the categories of 'mental'
>and 'physical'?
>
>Some interesting replies here, and much
>food for thought. Having pitched the
>question I feel I should contribute my
>own view, which seems to have
>something in common with a few of the
>remarks from other respondents.
>
>I don't think there are any hard and fast
>rules here, but rather 'mental' and
>'physical' are words that one learns to
>apply according to the customs of the
>linguistic community to which one ...
|
| Show full article (7.00Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: caseycasey Date: Jan 27, 2008 18:02
On Jan 28, 12:10 pm, TRISEC...@ webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino) wrote:
...
> Materialists can't find consciousness because it is
> non materialistic.
If it has an effect it is material. It exists to the
extent that it has an effect and is defined by the
effects it has.
...
|
| Show full article (1.59Kb) |
| 2 Comments |
|
|
Author: thinkerthinker Date: Jan 27, 2008 18:49
>I suggest you read "Phantoms in the Brain" if you haven't
>already done so.
That is one cool and fascinating book. Ramachandran has a knack for writing
in English and avoiding the jargon that could cripple neurological tales.
Thanks for the recommendation.
|
| |
| 18 Comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jan 27, 2008 20:18
Anthony G. Rubino was quoted:
Materialists can't find consciousness because it is non materialistic.
.
casey wrote:
If it has an effect it is material. It exists to the extent that it has
an effect and is defined by the effects it has.
AGR:
Who defines the effects and what is causing those effects? Is the one
who is feeling the effects the same as the effects? Do the feelings
differ from the causes of those feelings? In what way? What causes the
effect called definitions? Do definitions have any effect? On what? On
Who? Why are they created if they could have no effect? What are the
material components of the definition of material components?
|
| Show full article (2.91Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jan 27, 2008 20:31
Anthony G. Rubino) was quoted by thinker as saying:
I suggest you read "Phantoms in the Brain" if you haven't already done
so.
That was casey's recommendation.
I don't make such recommendations.
My recommendation is to think things through for youself.
Reading others is fine, especially if it helps you to get enough
understanding and confidence to think for yourself.
Tony, philosopher
http://www.geocities.com/trisector/
So many misconceptions, so little time.
|
| |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: caseycasey Date: Jan 27, 2008 22:58
On Jan 28, 3:18 pm, TRISEC...@ webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino) wrote: >> casey wrote:
>> If it has an effect it is material. It exists to the extent
>> that it has an effect and is defined by the effects it has.
>
> AGR:
> Who defines the effects and what is causing those effects?
< snip barrage of questions too convoluted to answer>
So many questions, so little time :)
>> casey wrote:
>> We can't imagine a mechanistic explanation of a system
>> requiring it to be conscious but that may be due to a
>> lack of imagination. We can't imagine any explanation
>> as to why the brain has consciousness.
>
> AGR:
> Could that be because imagination and a material brain
> are different in nature?
|
| Show full article (2.18Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: caseycasey Date: Jan 27, 2008 23:00
On Jan 28, 3:31 pm, TRISEC...@ webtv.net (Anthony G. Rubino) wrote:
> I suggest you read "Phantoms in the Brain" if you
> haven't already done so.
>
>
> That was casey's recommendation.
>
>
> I don't make such recommendations.
>
>
> My recommendation is to think things through for youself.
>
>
> Reading others is fine, especially if it helps you to
> get enough understanding and confidence to think for
> yourself.
|
| Show full article (1.19Kb) |
| 5 Comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: Anthony G. RubinoAnthony G. Rubino Date: Jan 28, 2008 00:02
>
>casey wrote:
>
>No amount of "thinking for yourself" will
>allow you to discover the existence of
>radio waves. Maxwell predicted radio
>waves with "pure thought" + DATA. Even
>he could not have predicted radio waves
>by pure thought alone.
>
>Also you need to have studied the
>mistakes in logic people make in "pure
>thought" so you don't make the same
>mistakes yourself.
>
Reading to obtain new observations, data, information, and
interpretations, or reading just for pleasure, is quite different than
reading, as you suggest,
|
| Show full article (1.36Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
