From: Michael Williams (michaelj.williams@TISCALI.CO.UK)
Date: Thu Jun 03 2004 - 07:43:01 EDT
Despite 'so much to do and so little time', I cannot resist at this point sticking a cent's worth into this fascinating, wide-ranging and fundamental thread. > -----Original Message----- > From: OPE-L [mailto:OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU] On Behalf Of Andrew Brown > Sent: Thursday, June 03, 2004 12:19 PM > To: OPE-L@SUS.CSUCHICO.EDU > Subject: Re: Money and Mind > ... > To try an analogy: 'explaining' the emergence of money whilst > abstracting from the existence and substance of value is like > 'explaining' the emergence of language whilst abstracting > from the fact that it achieves reference, that it has a > semantic as well as syntactic side. To problematize Andy's notion that we need to have an ontological commitment to an entity in all its detailed glory before we can investigate its emergence, try another analogy (sparked by current study of Daniel Dennett's work in pursuit of a better understanding of intentionality, agency, subjectivity and the like): Does it make sense to insist that we know (let alone are ontologically committed to) all the detailed phenomenological furniture of the 'the mind' before we can investigate its emergence from the evolving complexity of 'the brain'? I rather think not. michael
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 04 2004 - 00:00:01 EDT