An intent is an outcome; an intent is not a cause. In your model intents come from the
l.teleonomicus, machinery that follows the same rules of physics as everything else.
From: Friam <[hidden email]> On Behalf Of
[hidden email]
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:40 PM
To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff
Marcus,
Thanks for engaging.
However, I am not sure I understand your comment.
The statement that events in the brain mediate events in behavior are in no way inconsistent with materialism, a form of monism, are they?
Nick
Nicholas Thompson
Emeritus Professor of Ethology and Psychology
Clark University
https://wordpress.clarku.edu/nthompson/
From: Friam <[hidden email]>
On Behalf Of Marcus Daniels
Sent: Sunday, October 4, 2020 2:00 PM
To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[hidden email]>
Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Shorthands for Brain-stuff
Nick writes:
< Jones is accused of a terrible crime which requires forming and acting on an intention. The police bungle the arrest and jones is shot dead. Jones’s wife sues the police, claiming the underlying crime could not have been performed
by Jones because he was incapable of forming an intention. Since Jones is dead, the simple test procedure cannot be performed. So Jones’s wife demands an autopsy, where it is found that indeed, Jones had developed a cancerous lesion in
l. teleonomicus. Judgment is made in favor if the wife. >
Still haven’t addressed the dualism in your l.teleonomicus
argument. You’ve just compartmentalized it as a magic black box.
The wife may have case because the cops bungled the arrest. They don’t determine guilt or innocence.
Marcus
| Free forum by Nabble | Edit this page |