ElektraUkM
Posts: 309
Joined: 2/19/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
By the way I note that while in your previous post you emphasized sticking to familiar language, in this post you are pointing out that sometimes it needs to be called into question. An insightful observation on your part, that.
Actually in that post I was going to comment that you seem to use common language and specific theories interchangeably to suit your own point of view. I didn't, because I'm aware that posts can easily get far too long for people to deal with, and end up discussing the minutiae of the debate rather than the wider question. I don't believe that either 'common talk' or specific theories are preferable, and as I say that I realise that one of the features of our discussion is that you'll assume that I favour one theory, approach or whatever over another, when in fact I have no such preference.
quote:
Now, before you go, can you scroll up and show me where I indicated that
quote:
such theories 'don't exist'
Before I go where?
I was referring to your suggestion, here:
quote:
Deciding is commonly spoken of as something we do, by Freudians, Jungians, Maslovians; by, Dualists, Monists, and people holding all sorts of models of brain function and/or reality.
No, I don’t see that much of anything here turns upon one’s preferred theory or model of mind or metaphysics.
Which I took to mean that you were pointing out that it didn't matter which theory of mind, or common talk of internal goings-on you adopted, that the idea that decision-making could be looked at as an Act was never contradicted. I apologise if that wasn't your intention, but at times I have difficulty in isolating your point from your expansive, sarcastic style  .
quote:
...
I think that in the attempt you will find that I explicitly acknowledged ...
Implicitly, perhaps. But I see you acknowledge the point now. And thanks to Lordandmaster for pointing out my error, it is Dennett. I would think there are several places online one could go to to find outlines of his theories.
Anyway, and to cut this short, my point (several posts ago) was that it is debatable that the internal events we call decision-making is an Act (of course it 'can be seen' as an Acts ~ that was never debatable), since at least one argument that decision-making isn't an Act exists.
That said, I will restate what I said several posts ago, which was that I am quite able to take the point of view that decision-making is An Act, for the purposes of this debate (just as I would be willing to take the opposite view should that be required). So hopefully there won't be any further necessity to question why I'm taking one view over another?
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
As for this: quote:
this particular question (are thoughts Acts..?) is an interesting one, Well it may or may not be interesting but no one before you raised this question, as Faramir pointed out, so you needn't have troubled yourself to dispense with it.
I realise that I wasn't making myself clear there. As I responded to Faramir above, I meant to address the question of whether a particular thought (i.e. decision-making) can be viewed as an Act. When I used the phrase 'any thought' I meant 'any in the range of thoughts' rather than 'any and all thoughts'.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah
I do thank you for pointing out that there is at least one theory of mind under which mistoferin's contention can be called into question. That is a fine contribution to the conversation
You're welcome.
I hope you also were able to take on board the fact that I have no problem with discussing the Original Question from the premis that "the internal event known as decision-making can be considered An Act"
In particular, I would be interested to see whether it's possible to call an internal Act 'submissive' or 'dominant', since it is surely debatable whether the decision would be submissive to the Dominant outside the mind, or Dominant in the sense of a Decision being the original motivator (assuming one subscribes to that theory of mind) to particular action (or inaction) within the Submissive's own body.
In fact, as a first thought, I would suggest that a Decision is both submissive and dominant, which doesn't sound right (and might stem from the 'wrongness' of trying to apply such terms to a mental act). My second thought is that we could (should?) probably break down this simple 'Decision' into several, finer, decisions, some of which are submissive and some of which are not. These 'decisions' would begin with the decision to listen, the decision to obey (which is not yet an Act, or is it?), the decision to bend over (which is not submissive, but controlling of the body, though done within a submissive frame of mind)... Anyway, I will leave it to someone else to refine, discard, challenge or ignore my initial thoughts on this.
Edited to add:
I actually wonder whether any (in the sense noted above!) thought, perhaps Particularly (!) Decision-Making can be considered Submissive, if we accept the Theory of Free Will. (which I can either accept, or reject, incidentally  )
Or perhaps the Act of Submission isn't a 'Decision' at all in some people's mind. In which case, what kind of mental event is it?
~ Elektra
< Message edited by ElektraUkM -- 7/23/2005 5:13:51 AM >
|
RE: If is isn't about Acts, what is it about? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread