Russ,
You asked: Did becoming an experience monist change your life in any way? Exactly the right question to ask a pragmatist. If there is one thing a pragmatist should not be caught asserting is a distinction that does not make a difference. I don’t think, as I said, there is a lot of difference in what follows from different sorts of monism. What I will argue is that being a monist rather than a dualist makes a difference. But I won’t argue it now, because I am frantically getting ready to return to New England. You and I have had our most useful arguments in June, when I am stuck in the clammy fogs that can sometimes press in from the Atlantic. When the wind goes NE, you will hear from me. Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 4:17 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness. That sounds a lot like what Strawson was saying. Did becoming an experience monist change your life in any way? On Mon, May 16, 2016 at 11:50 AM Nick Thompson <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: Geez, Russ, who would have thought you were such a handsome old dog. Anyway, not sure how the Strawson thing is an antidote to “Thompsonism”. And which, Thompson, by the way. During the time we have been corresponding, you and I, I have gone from being a materialist monist a la E. B Holt (“all that exists consists of matter and its relations”) to being neutral monist at la CS Peirce (“all that exists is experience, and all distinctions we make – mind, matter, your mind, my mind, past, present, future – arise as patterns in experience.” ) There is not a lot of daylight between experience monism and any other kind, but the Peirce way feels just a tad more honest and radical in its monism. On that view, there is nothing outside of experience-- talk of “experience of X” is all nonsense, unless, of course, X is another experience – nor is there any place for experience to be, no brain, no mind, unless these manifest themselves as patterns in experience. Thus, our obligation as scientists is to describe the experiences that anchor our references tomind, and brain, and anything else that we might claim to be outside, or beyond, experience. So, how would one anchor in experience, such claims as “consciousness is nothing but brain activity”? Nick Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University <http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/> http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/ From: Friam [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of Russ Abbott Sent: Monday, May 16, 2016 11:48 AM To: FRIAM <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > Subject: [FRIAM] Strawson on consciousness. An antidote for Nick Thompsonism. I've summarized <https://plus.google.com/u/0/+RussAbbott1/posts/XfJg2mEmwcw> Galen Strawson's piece in the NYT on consciousness. ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
