Hi Craig,
> [Steve] >> Only human beings use the word "cause" to describe their experience. Craig: > Yes & only human beings use the word "motion" to describe their experience, > though of course all sorts of other things move. Steve: True. The difference as far as the MOQ is that moving is directly experienced while inferring causal relationships is intellectual activity. As it is conceptual, causality is secondary and static (an ipov) rather than primary and dynamic. But _do_ we directly experience motion? We see a thing here and the there and all the points in between, but did we see it _move_ from here to there? This is analogous to Hume's critique of causality where he points out that causality is not directly observed. I found it interesting to read in Eagleman's brain science book that some people actually lose the ability to perceive motion following brain injuries. They see the thing at one point, and then the next and the next, but they don't perceive it as _moving_. There is change in position but no movement. These people (even if they have 20/20 vision) are very bad drivers. We all experience the reverse situation when we stare at a waterfall for a while and then look at the surrounding rocks which we may perceive as moving without changing position. Weird wild stuff, that grey matter. > [Steve] >> Does drinking red wine cause a reduction in the risk of heart disease? >> ...The above is what I call "playing the causality game." >> ...The causality game is _our_ tool for predicting and >> controlling, for doing things like lowering our risk of heart disease. Craig: > No doubt there are various games one can play with causality. Steve: What I am saying is that this intellectual game _is_ causality. That's all pragmatists mean by the term. Best, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org/md/archives.html
