His argument, if I understand it:
Geology and meteorology can be grounded in physics because rocks and weather are determined by interactions between particles whereas economics cannot be grounded in physics because coins, notes or other artifacts are money only if they are believed to be money and, since "...money can have an indefinite range of physical forms..., it can have an indefinite range of stimulus patterns on our visual systems" (FIVE, p. 80) and these patterns cannot produce "...exactly the same neurophysiological effect on the brain." (ibid.)
OK?
3 comments:
Kaor, paul!
And Searle's argument makes sense to me! Gold or silver coins (or any other artifacts used as a means of exchange) are valuable only because of how PEOPLE value them. And the needs, wishes, or whims of people are so variable and ever changing that no called science of humanity can possibly predict what will happen.
Ad astra! Sean
You might add that consciousness most likely includes quantum effects, which are inherently probabilstic rather than deterministic.
Also, a good deal of the predictability of particles is based on the -number- of them that physics deals with.
All particles are created equal; people aren't, in terms of the
You can make probabilistic calculations of how whole populations will react, but not of how individuals do -- and human affairs at a political level are decisively influenced by how small numbers of people decide to act.
Eg., probably about 25 people make all the fundamental decisions to start WW1 in 1914. Those decisions caused the war, in the sense of being necessary rather than permissive. Nationalism, for example, made the war -possible-, but concrete individual decisions are what decided that it would occur in terms of our getting the WW1 we actually did.
Kaor, Mr. Stirling!
I agree with your comments. Esp. about WW I. If any of the decisions made by those 25 or so persons had been DIFFERENT, there would either had been NO Great War, or its length and outcome would have been drastically different.
Considering how DISMAL most of the results and consequences of our WW I had been, I'm tempted to think almost any other outcome would have been better. Esp. if we did not get a Lenin, Stalin, or Hitler coming to power.
Ad astra! Sean
Post a Comment