Gaynor is troubled by a sentence in TSK:<\/p>\n
\u00e2\u20ac\u0153It becomes equally appropriate to maintain that this fact (that no source is found) is conclusive evidence that such a source does not exist<\/em>, rather than being simply a corollary<\/em> of the source\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s existence\u00e2\u20ac\u009d<\/p>\n In response, I’m going to get precise about language, because I think it makes an important point about how the TSK books are written.<\/p>\n The discussion at the point where this quote appears is directed at a set of philosophical concerns (in general, the first TSK book addresses itself more to the questions that might be raised by a student of philosophy than the later books). And throughout, it uses this rather strained “it is appropriate” language. What does this way of speaking point to?<\/p>\n Usually, philosophy (and science) aim to give explanations, and usually explanations claim to be accurate or true, in the sense that the explanation “corresponds” to what is really the case. But here, “explanations” are replaced by “appropriate” statements. In philosophical terms, I understand this to mean that the “correspondence theory” of truth gives way to a “coherence theory” of truth: If you are going to look at one set of things in a certain way, it becomes “appropriate” to see other things in a related way.<\/p>\n So, the scientific perspective (I am at the top of p. 53) finds it appropriate to adopt a physicalist understanding of mind. But if we are going to make progress with TSK Ex. 11, this view is no longer appropriate, and we should “suspend allegiance” to it. For a moment, we are left in limbo; in other words, it is not “appropriate” to hold any view. But it is not easy to maintain a “no position” position, so the commentary suggests that it would be “appropriate” to adopt a different view, which holds 1) that no source for experience can be found and 2) that we can conclude from this that no source for experience exists.<\/p>\n Now, the point here is that this is not an “assertion” about the way things really are (an “assertion,” Gaynor, is precisely what you call it in your Post). The last paragraph on page 54 makes clear. It is only an appropriate way to look at things.<\/p>\n It may be that you find it more “appropriate” just to leave the question of what is really so open, instead of adopting a kind of “provisional assertion” about it, as the book suggests. I think the idea here, though, is that if we try to suspend our usual belief in physical brain-mind causality, without putting anything in its place, we are left with mush.<\/p>\n Now, as to the rest of your post, I do find that some people trace the arising of thoughts to an energetic level, as you do here. Others do not. It would be an interesting challenge for people who don’t typically start from “energy” to look there.<\/p>\n Jack<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Gaynor is troubled by a sentence in TSK: \u00e2\u20ac\u0153It becomes equally appropriate to maintain that this fact (that no source is found) is conclusive evidence that such a source does not exist, rather than being simply a corollary of the … Continue reading