[FOM] Re. Progress in Philosophy

[laureano luna]

On Mon, 12 Mar 2007 Charlie Silver wrote:

>Before there can be a mind-body problem, a good
>argument is needed  
>for a mind-body distinction.   I do not think any 
(analytic)  
>philosopher has given a good argument for such a
>distinction. To me,  
>no distinction=no problem.

Evidently I don't know what you accept as a good
argument but it seems to me obvious that the burden of
the proof is on the side of those who claim no
distinction exists. 

Why?

Simple: predicate distinction. Mind states and body
states have specific seemingly non interchangeable
classes of predicates e.g. 'close/remote' for body
states or 'pleasant/unpleasant' for mind states. Or
perhaps still more sharply: 'right/wrong' for states
of belief. 

The point is that this is the way things PRIMARILY
appear to us. If a person claims things are not the
way they appear, then one is entitled to require from
that person a good argument to the effect, not vice
versa.

The sensible reduction of both classes of predicates
to one class is the minimal requirement any identity
theory must meet and this is sure no trivial task.

Regards,

Laureano Luna 



		
______________________________________________ 
LLama Gratis a cualquier PC del Mundo. 
Llamadas a fijos y móviles desde 1 céntimo por minuto. 
http://es.voice.yahoo.com