From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers Tue Feb 11 15:25:57 EST 1992
Article 3606 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:3606 sci.philosophy.tech:2105
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!bronze!chalmers
>From: chalmers@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu (David Chalmers)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Empirical Irrefutability of Philosophy
Message-ID: <1992Feb10.031355.25776@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu>
Date: 10 Feb 92 03:13:55 GMT
References: <1992Feb06.044858.27264@convex.com> <1992Feb7.050537.26358@bronze.ucs.indiana.edu> <1992Feb07.190357.12743@convex.com>
Organization: Indiana University
Lines: 29

In article <1992Feb07.190357.12743@convex.com> cash@convex.com (Peter Cash) writes:

>From this, I conclude that when you speak of "interactionist dualism" you
>must be thinking of the sort of dualism that envisions "mind" as a sort of
>nebulous causative agent that moves the human body like a puppeteer moves a
>puppet. 

>If I am interpreting you correctly, then your claim is narrow; for example,
>you wouldn't say that your physiological "causal chain" refutes, say,
>epiphenomenalism--or, for that matter, idealism. You think you refute only
>dualism, and only a particular kind of dualism.

That's right: when I say "interactionist dualism", I mean interactionist
dualism.  (Tarskian semantics is a wonderful thing.)

>You have not proven your point, for this proof requires philosophical
>assumptions that have themselves not been proven in any way--nor are they
>subject to empirical proof. The key assumptions I see in your proof revolve
>around the nature of "cause".

I'm certainly not claiming that any philosophical question can be
settled by empirical means *alone*.  Some conceptual spadework will
always be required.  That's true of science as well as of philosophy,
incidentally.

-- 
Dave Chalmers                            (dave@cogsci.indiana.edu)      
Center for Research on Concepts and Cognition, Indiana University.
"It is not the least charm of a theory that it is refutable."


