From newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny Tue Apr  7 23:22:20 EDT 1992
Article 4726 of comp.ai.philosophy:
Xref: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca comp.ai.philosophy:4726 sci.philosophy.tech:2430
Path: newshub.ccs.yorku.ca!ists!helios.physics.utoronto.ca!news-server.ecf!utgpu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!usc!wupost!uwm.edu!ogicse!hsdndev!husc-news.harvard.edu!zariski!zeleny
>From: zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny)
Newsgroups: comp.ai.philosophy,sci.philosophy.tech
Subject: Re: Causes and Goals
Message-ID: <1992Mar25.162119.10263@husc3.harvard.edu>
Date: 25 Mar 92 21:21:17 GMT
References: <1992Mar24.150412.11325@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> <1992Mar24.130026.10219@husc3.harvard.edu> <1992Mar25.163229.26544@neptune.inf.ethz.ch>
Organization: Dept. of Math, Harvard Univ.
Lines: 58
Nntp-Posting-Host: zariski.harvard.edu

In article <1992Mar25.163229.26544@neptune.inf.ethz.ch> 
santas@inf.ethz.ch (Philip Santas) writes:

>In article <1992Mar24.130026.10219@husc3.harvard.edu>
>zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes: 

MZ:
>>                                                              I am hardly
>>in favor of reducing conation to chemicals.  It is simply a dividing line
>>between agency and its lack.  The alternative, which I am prepared to

PS:
>What is your guidance for drawing this line other that the line
>between life and its lack? 

Nothing but my world-famous philosophical intuition.  In short, nothing.

PS:
>			 Is there any reason for accepting this 'isomorphism'

Could we please have a moratorium on the catachretic use of this term
(especially in scare quotes), particularly when some legitimate
alternatives, like "coextensiveness" will do perfectly well?

PS:
>between life and agencey?

I am alive, and consider myself to be an agent; on the other hand, a
billiard ball isn't, and so I don't.  If you want to draw the line
elsewhere, be my guest; I just happen to like it where it is.

MZ:
>>entertain, is panpsychism, and, perhaps more to the point, omnivolitionism,
>>on which see Spinoza and Schopenhauer.  On this view, electrons certainly
>>go after protons, and not just in a manner of speaking.

PS:
>Certainly, but I find this point of view more consistent than yours,
>although I am prepared to accept the former just as a brain exercise.

You certainly have some strange ideas about consistency.  In any case, you
might be interested in Thomas Nagel's article "Panpsychism", reprinted in
his "Mortal Thoughts".  Again, "panpoieiticism", "panpracticism", or
"omnivolitionism" would be more to the point.

>Philip Santas

`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'
: Qu'est-ce qui est bien?  Qu'est-ce qui est laid?         Harvard   :
: Qu'est-ce qui est grand, fort, faible...                 doesn't   :
: Connais pas! Connais pas!                                 think    :
:                                                             so     :
: Mikhail Zeleny                                                     :
: 872 Massachusetts Ave., Apt. 707                                   :
: Cambridge, Massachusetts 02139           (617) 661-8151            :
: email zeleny@zariski.harvard.edu or zeleny@HUMA1.BITNET            :
:                                                                    :
'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`'`


