The"construction"metaphor: how to create the world? Suppose there were a god as the Creator: What He should do in order to create everything in the world that we know? 1. Physicalism: He should create the physical stuff only. then the mental stuff would emerge automatically 2. Dualism: He should create the physical stuff on the one hand the mental stuff on the other. 3. Neutral monism the neutral stuff to be provided first, then both the mind and the body could be constructed out of them
The “construction” metaphor: how to create the world? • Suppose there were a God as the Creator: What He should do in order to create everything in the world that we know? • 1. Physicalism: He should create the physical stuff only. Then the mental stuff would emerge automatically. • 2. Dualism: He should create the physical stuff on the one hand, the mental stuff on the other. • 3. Neutral monism: the neutral stuff to be provided first, then both the mind and the body could be constructed out of them
More on the construction metaphor Some asymmetry between something should be built primarily"and"something should be built afterwards Even in the dualist narrative such asymmetry exists in the sense that dualists while assuming that both the mental and the physical are fundamental, do not intend to claim that the mental states of other minds are as fundamental as mine Needless to say panpsychism, according to which the physical space should be rebuilt from the mental stuff prevalent in the universe
More on the “construction metaphor” • Some asymmetry between “something should be built primarily” and “something should be built afterwards”. • Even in the dualist narrative, such asymmetry exists in the sense that dualists, while assuming that both the mental and the physical are fundamental, do not intend to claim that the mental states of other minds are as fundamental as mine. • Needless to say Panpsychism, according to which the physical space should be rebuilt from the mental stuff prevalent in the universe
Some conceptual clarifications The employment of the construction metaphor"is not the same as that of the notion of reduction Reduction" surely offers a typical illustration of such a metaphor but it does not exhaust all of the latters meanings For instance, though non-reductive physicalism is definitely non-reductive it still fits the pattern of the"construction metaphor" in the sense that the supervenience relation ship"itself is asymmetrical
Some conceptual clarifications • The employment of the “construction metaphor” is not the same as that of the notion of “reduction”. “Reduction” surely offers a typical illustration of such a metaphor, but it does not exhaust all of the latter’s meanings. • For instance, though non-reductive physicalism is definitely non-reductive, it still fits the pattern of the “construction metaphor” in the sense that the “supervenience relationship” itself is asymmetrical
WHAT WITTGENSTEIN WOULD SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS?
WHAT WITTGENSTEIN WOULD SAY ABOUT ALL OF THIS?
The 1929's paper Some remarks on logical forms n this paper Wittgenstein shows a strong tendency to accept either subjective idealism or neutral monism in the sense that he intends to view atomic propositions, out of which all other propositions can be logically constructed, as something representing sense- data
The 1929’s paper: Some remarks on logical forms • In this paper, Wittgenstein shows a strong tendency to accept either subjective idealism or neutral monism in the sense that he intends to view atomic propositions, out of which all other propositions can be logically constructed, as something representing sensedata