On 17 February 2010 00:06, Brent Meeker <meeke...@dslextreme.com> wrote:
> I don't see that my 1-p experience is at all "causally closed". In fact, > thoughts pop into my head all the time with no provenance and no hint of > what caused them. The problem is that if one believes that the 3-p narrative is causally sufficient, then the "thoughts" that pop into your head - and their consequences - are entirely explicable in terms of some specific 3-p rendition. If you also "seem" to have the 1-p experience of the "sound" of a voice in your head, this is entirely gratuitous to the 3-p "thought-process" and its consequences. More problematic still, neither the existence nor the experiential characteristics of 1-p experience is computable from the confines of the 3-p narrative. So how can it be possible for any such narrative to *refer* to the experiential quality of a thought? David > David Nyman wrote: >>> >>> Is there a problem with the idea that 3-p can be derived from some >>> combinatorics of many interacting 1-p's? Is there a reason why we keep >>> trying to derive 1-p from 3-p? >>> >> >> I suspect there's a problem either way. AFAICS the issue is that, in >> 3-p and 1-p, there exist two irreducibly different renditions of a >> given state of affairs (hence not "identical" in any >> non-question-begging sense of the term). It then follows that, in >> order to fully account for a given set of events involving both >> renditions, you have to choose between some sort of non-interacting >> parallelism, or the conundrum of how one "causally closed" account >> becomes informed about the other, or the frank denial of one or the >> other rendition. None of these options seems satisfactory. >> > > I don't see that my 1-p experience is at all "causally closed". In fact, > thoughts pop into my head all the time with no provenance and no hint of > what caused them. > > Brent > >> The way out would be if both 3-p and 1-p were reconcilable in terms of >> a more fundamental level, in terms of which the special relevance of >> each partial narrative was linked to its proper range of outcomes. In >> point of fact, of course, this is the "folk psychological" position, >> and it seems all too easy simply to dismiss this as terminating in >> naive dualism. However, my early-morning musings include a glimmering >> of how this might be made to work - without doing terminal violence to >> either rendition - but unfortunately there is insufficient space in >> the margin of this post to write it down (as yet). >> >> David > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en. > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
