On Tue, 22 Dec 2009 11:38:29 -0800 (PST) Chris Doss
<lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> writes:
>
> That way lies pantheism. (A position I am not totally adverse too,
> since it would go a long way to solving the mind-body problem!)
I was thinking more along the lines of Gilbert Ryle's notion that it is a mistake to think of mind as a substance or a thing. It's rather a way of acting. Ryle denied that his a position was a form of behaviorism (as Wittgenstein did too) but it sure looks like a species of behaviorism to me.
>
> As an aside, your thought processes do involve lots of things that
> are not part of you (like air and light). Does that make the air and
> light part of your mind? If "mind" is the sum total of events that
> determine my thinking, almost everything is part of my mind.
>
>
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: "farmelantj at juno.com" <farmelantj at juno.com>
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Sent: Tue, December 22, 2009 9:27:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Angier: Plants Don't Want to Die Either
>
>
> Why would it be odd?
>
> True, that conclusion wouldn't
> seem to accord with common sense,
> but I don't think that common sense
> is of much use for dealing with issues
> like this.
>
> Jim F.
>
>
>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>
>
____________________________________________________________ Banking Click here to find the perfect banking opportunity! http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/c?cp=X6r6vGVmx7SBNoKAz-7BZgAAJ1DoEMrytxsVXKlEh0tvqeWlAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADNAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAXeAAAAAA=