Mercurial > hg > BCS

comparison brian_2025-03-03.txt @ 75:97049d69a728

Find changesets by keywords (author, files, the commit message), revision number or hash, or revset expression.
on to section 2
author Henry Thompson <ht@markup.co.uk>
date Mon, 10 Mar 2025 17:19:57 +0000
parents 4426e1a7ddd5
children 3df8b3fecd09
comparison
equal deleted inserted replaced
74:9e922ce6918d 75:97049d69a728
99 99
100 [HST summarises: The Quietist says "yes, the scientists are doing a 100 [HST summarises: The Quietist says "yes, the scientists are doing a
101 great job on Question 1, and it gets better all the time, but that has 101 great job on Question 1, and it gets better all the time, but that has
102 nothing to do with Question 2: for that I have the Church"] 102 nothing to do with Question 2: for that I have the Church"]
103 103
104 The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient. 104 >>>>>>>>>>side tracks???>>>>>>>>>
105
106 This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a
107 tenable division. [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken]
108
109 These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed. Because
110 people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific
111 ones.
112
113 There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into
114 the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the
115 scientific one. So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be
116 rethought.
117
118 -----End of section-----
119
120 Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those 105 Is there anything like a consensus/received wisdom as to what those
121 two forms of understanding are? On the science side, people might 106 two forms of understanding are? On the science side, people might
122 assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism). The (r-s?) critique 107 assume that it's causal explanations (mechanism). The (r-s?) critique
123 of that might be that the pure mechanism story can't even account for 108 of that might be that the pure mechanism story can't even account for
124 physical objects, to say nothing of 109 physical objects, to say nothing of
136 ] 121 ]
137 122
138 [HST: what's the other one?] 123 [HST: what's the other one?]
139 124
140 [HST: write a two-page version? A skeleton] 125 [HST: write a two-page version? A skeleton]
126 <<<<<<<<<<end of side tracks>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
141 127
128 The ideological claim wrt the s-r is that it's complete and sufficient.
129
130 This (that these forms of thinking are distinct) is no longer a
131 tenable division. [I.e. the compatibilist is mistaken]
132
133 These two sets of world-views are no longer tenably opposed. Because
134 people are trying to corral a whole bunch of topics into the scientific
135 ones.
136
137 There are many topics which classically had been thought to fall into
138 the [r-s] category which are being explored in something like the
139 scientific one. So, bottom-line, the whole distinction needs to be
140 rethought.
141
142 -----End of new section one-----
143
144 Next would be an informal account of the structure of intentionality?
145
146 If we look at that the structure of intentionality in light of
147 physical science it will turn out that the intentional stuff has
148 properties that are associated with [r-s]. So the essentially
149 infinite structure and complexity of the world, the fact that
150 descriptions are partial and inadequate.
151
152 Or, [BCS] has spent the last 50 years trying to formulate a theory of
153 intentionality compatible with the physical sciences, but it turns out
154 that the character of intentionality that you get if you do that has
155 many properties that have classically been assumed to lie within
156 [r-s].
157
158 Or, the story [BCS] is trying to tell here is _BCS's_ world-view.
159 It's not necessarily anyone else's. What is it?
160
161 a) A story about intentionality that's compatible with physics;
162
163 b) A recognition that if this is the character of intentionality,
164 and if we are currently using it, in other words, go
165 ...
166 What does the world look like from within that view of
167 intentionality?
168
169 OR
170
171 1) This is a place where BCS can state / give voice to his view of
172 intentionality;
173
174 2) There's a kind of first-person perspective which he's shifting
175 to, as opposed to a third-person perspective. Perhaps not
176 necessary, but it's at least lurking...
142 177
143 ---------------- 178 ----------------
144 For discussion with Jill: 179 For discussion with Jill:
145 1) Jim's visit; 180 1) Jim's visit;
146 2) Repayment to Catharine 181 2) Repayment to Catharine