On Oct 17, 7:02 am, Stathis Papaioannou <[email protected]> wrote: > Suppose I decide to arrange three stones in a triangle. Do the stones > "create" the triangle (upward causation), or does the triangle > "constrain" the stones (downward causation)?
The triangle does not exist. If anything, it 'insists'. The stones are mere placeholders to satisfy our subjective motive of expressing our intangible abstraction externally. A cat sees no triangle there. The stones aren't causing anything, they are just sitting exactly where we put them. It is our decision, and our projection of that decision through the spinal cord, efferent nerves, arms, and fingertips that has caused their placement to our cognitive-representational satisfaction. What you aren't seeing is that the triangle does not objectively exist at all. By setting 'the triangle' as the a priori true fact to be explained, misdirects our attention from the concrete reality of the situation to an imaginary world where sensorimotive perception has concrete existence (which ironically actually would be magic). Like Brent, your view takes pattern recognition for granted. You are 'eating the menu', so to speak - conflating symbolic interpretation (map) with physical existence (territory). The only upward causation is sensory feedback bouncing off of the stones which the eyes can read visually and the hands can read as a tactile text. The stones are otherwise completely passive. Craig -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
