But at the base level of analysis we can form expectations of where every atom in the universe will be indepenent of any meaning or purpose. It can look as if meaning and purposes have results as to where atoms in the universe will be at some time (such as why I am choosing just these words to put iinto this post) but if materialism is true the location of every atom in this computer can be best predicted without reference to anything I mean to say here. This includes not only the physically determined but intelligently designed computer, but also my brain which chooses my words at this very moment. which ex hypothesi was not inteligently designed. If determinism is true, then a Laplacian Physicist could, given the state of the atoms (and yes, you could write the laws of physics into the state of the the atoms rather than making the laws independent of it, but that would not change my argument) perfectly wihtout reference to anything mental. There would then still be truths of supervenience which indicate what pattens of physical states exist, if physical states are arranged a certain way, but these fact exist without intelligent content. If physicalism is true, the appearnce of believing something for a reason is just that--appearance. An opera singer can appear to cause a window to break by singing the words "Shatter now." but we know that itis physical causes, not intelligible content, that causes the window to shatter. In the same way, given physicalism, a philosopher may have the illusion that he has inferred the nonexistence of God from the evil in the world, but what the physicalist believes, once the logical implicationa of physicalism are drawn, entails he the philosopher has done no such thing. The blind physical processes of physics have caused his "conclusion," and the claim to have inferred anything is an illusion.
3 comments:
OP,
"the claim to have inferred anything is an illusion"
But what is an "illusion"? What is the definition of "illusion" in this context?
Is it anything like "hallucination"?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lyu7v7nWzfo
"if materialism is true the location of every atom in this computer can be best predicted without reference to anything I mean to say here."
What you mean to say is part of the material universe, so why should it be excluded from a list of causes?
A crystalline aggregate of SiO2 molecules encounters a planar amorphous aggregate of SiO2 molecules at high relative velocity. The forces thus set up within the amorphous aggregate break some of the inter-molecular bonds within it and it disintegrates into a collection of sub-aggregates. That's physics-speak. We would say, 'The thrown stone caused the window to shatter'. Few would want to say that any of the stone, the window, the shattering, or the causing is illusory. So if there is no distinct mental realm of causation independent of the physical, and beliefs, thoughts, reasons, etc, have a purely physical basis, then there need be nothing illusory in saying that two beliefs can collide and form a third. That may be exactly what inference is. Dualism surely has no proprietary insight into the nature of mental causation.
Post a Comment