anomalous monism
Davidson is not a reductionist - he wants to give
the mental a fair shake
and he recognizes
'The principle of causal interaction deals with events
in extension and is therefore blind to the mental-physical
dichotomy.'
such is accurate - it makes clear what physicalism can
accommodate - can deal with
mental events are not public and observable - and therefore
not physical - they will not be covered by physical law
this observation - would be partly accepted by mind-brain
identity theorists
the argument being - so called mental events must be brain
sensations and therefore physical
such an argument is really just the assertion of physics
over this issue - the underlying reason being - we cannot
allow in the physical world exceptions to physical theory -
even if we can't actually explain them - in principle there
is an explanation
and he sees mental events as intentional
or as Russell referred here - propositional attitudes -
such events are not public or observable - I describe them
as internal - as distinct from the physical-observable that
is external
the distinction here is ontological - different dimensions
and the point is - to be sharp - if you are going to be
fair dinkim about the physical - (public-observable) you
have to be prepared to accept that physical theory applies
only in the external dimension - what happens outside of
consciousness
and to the Davidson argument - there are no anomalies -
out there - everything is covered -
so the mental is not physical or physical-anomalous
we are talking here about two distinct ontological
categories or realms
it won't do to try and foist the description of one
onto the other - for it cannot apply
(and just by the way - this is what I think happens
in the argument that the mental causes the physical -
or can - it's a misuse of an objective category -
causation
'causation' as it is used in physical theory only
applies to the objective
a physical event can be an expression - a manifestation -
of a mental event
and this is not to think in terms of causation
it is rather to refer to the action of both dimensions
and the reality of transference from one to the other
it can and does go both ways
the possibility of this is purely contingent
and only finally dependent on the existence of
consciousness
without consciousness
there is no mental -
no internal dimension
in fact a world without consciousness is dimensionless)
to describe the totality both realms exist in - are
expressions of - is of course a question
is there such a language?
I suspect not - I think what we know is the inside and
the outside of -
of what? - of whatever it is
(we think - we speak from the inside out
to have such an all embracing language we would have to
think and speak from the outside in)
and so I would speak here of an unknown
