mental events
isn't it rather that from a causal nomological
point of view - mental events are finally irrelevant?
Davidson uses the example of the sinking of the Bismarck -
i.e.- the perpetrator's decisions - plans - perceptions -
judgments play a causal role in the act
it's a matter of point of view - in this sense
an alien creature watching the event - not knowing of
human consciousness - may well interpret - the event in
terms of a series of physical (observable) events - i.e. -
a straightforward cause and effect analysis - in physical
terms -
now a human observer of course sees the same thing - but
would be likely to hypothesize mental events - into -
or behind the physical
from a strictly - objective - observational point of view -
the straightforward physical cause and effect view - works
quite well - it doesn't require supplementation
and of this point of view - external - observational -
the postulation of mental events - is to propose -
the unobservable - into the equation
and for this reason - because such is - unscientific -
we (if we are scientists) do not do it - and presumably
feel no compunction to do so
mental events from this point of view - this stance -
are not anomalies - rather irrelevancies
(what is the problem with saying physical laws apply
only to what is observable?
mental events - are not observable therefore they are not -
recognized by physical law
it's not because they are necessarily a different kind
of event - rather they do not come up in a way - i.e. -
objective - observable - that science can recognize)
hence we are talking of an objective observer -
objective event
the bloke planing the sinking of Bismarck - picturing it -
in all its detail - thinking it out - is a man in thought
his status here is that of the subjective observer -
and he is 'observing' subjective events - a train of
thought
on the actual day of the sinking - the bloke who does it -
is we will say the complete observer -
he sees his act from the inside - knows what he is doing
and also observes its objective dimension
will he say that his mental events caused the physical
event(s)?
yes
why?
because he sees the act in terms of both dimensions -
thus completely - he is not restricted to either dimension -
subjective or objective
his place is central
so causal?
clearly from the central standpoint - not physical-objective -
for such analysis only applies to the position of the objective
observer
and causal - mental?
i.e. - in the subjective realm -
and what would we call this - causal?
perhaps - the sequence of thought?
however you wish to characterize it
again
from the point of view of the complete observer
it is more than just that
(though only this from the exclusive subjective position)
if you are accepting of this argument so far -
you would see that 'causation' here is an over wrought
term - if not thoroughly abused
causation is not the correct way of accounting for the
relation between thought and act
(hence - you could say - philosophy of mind - one wrong step
and you have a field of knowledge)
from the position of the complete observer -
what can we say?
only that - Mi expresses Pi
the expression of Mi is Pi
this complete observer I should mention is weighted to
the subjective side of things
that is he will see the act in the first instance as an
expression of the subject
(rather than - if weighted objectively - as an objective
event - primarily - as it were of God or nature)
and what might this tell us of mind and matter?
only I think that a complete view here will not be
subjective or objective - rather a neutral position
I want to say we can see both dimensions
and both dimensions as expressions of - or views from
another place - another space
such a position -
philosophers have made the mistake of thinking their
characterizations of the subjective and the objective
can be applied to this level
are we to say this base position is physical -
the world of matter - or rather mental - the world
of mind -
I don't think these characterizations apply to this
ground position
I prefer to leave this place this position -
uncharacterized -
it is as it were where mind meets matter - or matter
meets mind -
Mi = Pi
= X
so yes - in a sense this comes to a mind-brain
identity thesis
but here the physical and the mental - are regarded
as expressions of a more fundamental unity -
one that cannot be characterized
