 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
It may be deemed useful at the outset to
provide some definition of what is meant
here by the terms: 'Causal Objects' or 'Causal Eventities.'
The most basic concept of Eliminative Determinism
suggests that the human-centred scenario
of individual 'events' is only a minuscule
example of the constantly changing universe
as enacted by every networked reticulation
of macro and micro causal objects both historical
and contemporary.
Eliminative Determinism
argues that 'that which causes' equals 'that which exists' and 'that which exists' equates to that which is holistically cosmically
existentially present at any one spatio-temporal
moment. The individuate parts of the cosmos
cannot cause, cannot exist and cannot really
be understood by humans except in their relation
to the whole.
What traditional determinism
classified as: 'cause' and 'event' do not exist. What was hitherto mistakenly
represented in such abstract categories can
now be said to be synonymously instantiated
in the material acuality of 'causal objects.'
Accordingly, it follows
that for a person to
apprehend or to witness an 'event' is actually to apprehend certain causal objects existing in the way that they exist at the
moment of the human perception
of them. Technically speaking; (not speaking
from an anthropocentrically 'moral' point
of view, no 'individual accountability' exists
- every 'event' in a nexus of the chain of
catenulate accountability. No 'cause' is involved - just 'normally existing causal objects,'.going through the motions jointly initiated
resulting from the ever-widening, fan-like,
bifurcating causal origins of today's causal objects that stretches back into the immense dark
sack of time
Such is the immensity
and complexity of the cosmos; such is the
universal ubiquity of modal change, and such
is the homogeny between 'change' and 'cause,'
and 'causal objects' all of which is governed
by the existential imperative which peremptorily
determines that 'to exist' is analogous 'to cause.’
For humans to seek to
anthropocentrically single out attribute
individual 'cause' to any causal object is
to differentiate and isolate that object
as being an 'individually culpable eventity'
which is somehow antithetically separated
from the overall, shared, mutual or 'joint
causal responsibility' or 'catenulate accountability'
of all the causal objects in the cosmos,
both historical and contemporaneous, that
exist in accordance with scientific generalisation
based on empirical observations or Laws of
Nature or hypotheses confirmed by scientific
experiments.
We ascribe such abstract
terms to objects in order to mask and blur
our ontological incomprehension - so that
we can deal with the changing modalic causal
objects that surround us.' 'Change' does
not exist of course - only that which changes
exists. The way or manner or mode in which
something exists does not in itself exist.
There is no such primitive, philosophically
uncouth ontological duality or juju which
exists – at a ballet, only the dancing dancers
populate the stage during the performance.
The 'dancing' itself does not exist.
The bowing female humans in the tu-tu dresses
smile, whilst fey youths thrust forward their
bulges and wave when the curtain drops. But
the dancing, the bowing, the bulging, the
waving and the smiling do not exist. Only
the pirouetting smiling, bulging pretty ones
exist - the ‘dancing’ no more exists than
Scotch mist.
The advantage of the
ontology of Eliminative Determinism over
naive consciousness or folk causality, with
its unquestioning and prejudiced intuition-based
mindset, becomes obvious to anybody with
an existing preference for materialism. Like
its theoretical bedfellow, Eliminative Materialism, Eliminative Determinism is customised rather
than intertheoretically simulated and grounded
in the conventions of traditional deterministic
abstraction.
That is not to say that
any new ontology just falls from the sky
ready-made, but itself has its roots in the
invaluable contributions of those determinists
who have gone before and established the
apodicticity of scientific, analytic, empirical
method over the unquestioning and prejudiced
naive consciousness of the free-willers I
believe that the dynamical neural networks
of the human brain perceive the patterns
of interaction of the changing objects within
the world which it finds itself and reifies
the changes it observes and describes them
with such useful ontological fictional vignettes
as: causes, effects, superventions, events,
circumstances, incidents, happenings, occurrences,
occasions' etc.
I am still engaged
in knocking the raw edges off my eliminative
determinist ontology which seeks to deny
the existence of causative transcendentalism
and fictional entities. I have been moved
to eliminate the dualist compact between
the mentalistic abstraction of transcendentalism,
with its religious dualistic origins and
associations, and the traditional, dualistic,
deterministic notions of ‘causality’ with
which the old forms of determinism are unhappily
burdened.
To 'exchange' a kiss with one's
lover is impossible. You kiss her and she
kisses you - the notion of ontological exchange
is a primitive myth. Each of the singletons
experiences the combined pressure of the
other's lips upon their own - but the pressure
and the physiological changes to the bodies
of each individual are unique and inviolate,
even in the ultimate stages of love-making.
Your heart-beat may increase and her cheeks
may take on a rosy glow - but these physiological
changes are unique to the individual. What
exists are the two lovers existing in excitingly
new existential modalities, which they themselves
have separately initiated in response to
the autonomous reorganisation of their mereological
community of cells and molecules.
And so it is the same
with Hume's billiard balls - the modalic
change following impact is a unique, separate,
intrinsic, auto-generated, existential response-reconfiguration
of the molecular, relativistic spatial positionality
of each individual ball to the general laws
of nature - and NOT specifically to the individual
oncoming ball which impinged upon its spatial
positionality.
It matter's not if some
physicist insists that the change to the
speed of the oncoming ball can be calculated
to be in a directly mathematical measurable
relationship to changed existential modality
of the stationary ball - no ‘exchange of
momentum’ has taken place.
The autopoietic entitic
extantal re-organisation of the stationary
ball into a moving ball is an adaptive spatial
relocation in accordance with the exact nature
of the laws of nature in strict conformity
with the internal changes it has undergone
as a part of the vast, ubiquitous, omnipresent
'catenulate systemic accountability' of the
material cosmos.
What exists are two
balls extant in new existential modalities
which they themselves have separately adopted
in response to the autonomous reorganisation
of their mereological community of molecules
as engineered and brought about and enacted
by those causal objects of the catenulate
past which have determined their contemporaneous
behavioural occurrence.
The answer is that we are not discussing
the manner in which billiard balls at rest
exist – even though when they are
‘still’ – they are in fact undergoing more
molecular changes than all of the grains
of sand on all of the beaches of the world.
We are investigating the way billiard balls
exist and undergo self-change when they are
struck. How? The macro causal object which
is the billiard ball changes as the micro
causal objects which constitute its inner
and outer corporeality modify themselves
This modification of matter is what 'energy'
actually is, but we should keep as our watchword
the fact that the process we call 'the modification
of matter' does not exist either.
Only that which is modified [changes] exists
- and by that we mean the billiard ball and
the uncountable causal objects of which it
is made.
Like Eliminative Materialism, Eliminative
Determinism denies the existence of 'mind'
and 'consciousness,' which are characterised
as vestigial hangovers from mankind's most
primitive aporiatic religious past. It characterises
the folk psychology which sprang from early
cultism as folktales which sought to explain
the way in which the self-referential human
brain reifies the compendium of retrieved
experiential pathways and templates we call
'memory' and re-registers and inventorially
internalises it as 'mind' or 'self' or 'I.'
Mentalistic dualism, or the imagined experiential
self-referential 'conversations' with some
inner dialogic superordinate is a presumed
fact of every human's experience - but presumptions and assumptions concerning
'facts' don't exist - only that which is
factual exists. The imagined self-voyeuristic
access and interrogation of the intimacies
of our own brain was seized upon by early
transcendentalists and formalised as an archaic
hereditary explicandum for a putative spirituality.
From the earliest period of our culture shamans
extended the notions of spiritualised rocks,
trees, wells and mountains to that of spiritualised
human heads tenanted or occupied by 'souls'
or 'minds.’
This act of making lumps
of animal tissue spiritual by ritualistically
infusing the brain-meat with spiritual content
[spiritualisation] by ancient hoodoos was
in order to explain away the general ignorance
surrounding the self-referencing neurological
network of the human brain, which we perceive
as un tête à tête de l'un avec notre propre
tête. Literally - A head to head with our own
head. In other words if the dualists are
to be believed - we talk to our own heads
- or to the meaty-bits inside our own heads
to be more precise.
Simple folk long ago
were uneducated regarding the brain's constant
internalisation and reflexive introjection
of aspects of the world (especially aspects
of persons) within itself. There was at that
time no concept of the manner or process
of the encephalon's constantly up-dating
characterisation of the external world and
how it becomes imprinted by a seemingly uninterrupted
reconfiguration of the synapsal connections
of the brain's neuronal net for future access.
A analogous sort of misunderstanding
can be found in the doctrines of traditional
determinism today, where the spiritual attribution
of 'causality' is extended to every object
in the cosmos. Entities from cricket bats
to surgical knives have become the assignees
of attributed 'causal possession' on a scale
which is redolent of 'poltergeists' which
are claimed to mysteriously cause other objects
to move, cut, rattle, crumble, be thrown
about, collapse, be pushed and pulled and
subjected to all manner of ghostly bumps
in the night and other interferences and
inexplicable ontological goings-on. It is
the purpose of Eliminative Determinism to
exorcise these fantômes dans la machine causale
and to try to do for 'causality' what the
marital and professorial partnership of the
Churchlands have done so brilliantly for
the myth of 'mind.' [1]
At this stage, by way of illustrative example,
I would like to re-introduce Hume’s example
of the billiard balls. It would seem obvious
that causal object is not only the ball which
bangs into the stationary, but is also the
'responsibility' or 'fault' of the ball that
is jarred by the moving ball. It can be seen
quite clearly that the impact is as much
the 'fault' of the ball ahead for 'being
[existing] in the way.' It can also be seen
that the ball which is hit gets OUT of the
way with the same amount of 'uncaring disinterestedness' that it manifested when it got IN the way
- i. e., nil!
Now I have deliberately
introduced the words 'responsibility' and
'fault' here and used personification intentionally
in order to save time [why have useful abstractions
if one is not prepared to employ them?] for
the concepts of 'blame' and 'absolvement'
are a part of the muzzy logic of ‘causality’
in the human mind.
The new determinism has
no place for abstract reifications,
which it regards as intertheoretical attempts
to retain the invisible threads of the non-existent
abstract properties of such useful fictions
as: momentum, energy, speed and mass. The
traditional view is that the rate at which
momentum is transferred from one object to
the other equals the force between the objects.
How hard they push on each other. Eliminative
Determinism refutes the claim that there
exists any ‘force’ called 'momentum' and
insists that only a moving causal object
can exist.
It is a feature of causal
objects that they automatically adjust their
existential modality in accordance with the
unique physical arrangement of the molecular
constituents of their autopoietic organisation
in relation to their contemporary physical
environment . For a stationary billiard ball
the impingement of another billiard ball
is just another feature of that cosmic physical
environment with its 'built-in imperative
for change and entitic equilibrium.
There is no valid reason
why we should identity the the 'cause' of
the change which takes place in the stationary
ball which is hit, being attributed to the
ball that hit it other than it represents
a humanly perceived current link in a chain
of entitic occurrences that go back into
eternity. To identify the oncoming ball as
the causal object responsible might make
sense to a human being struggling to understand
and nail-down the perceived reality of his
environment, but it makes no sense ontologically
from a scientifically rigorous eliminative
determinist analysis. The change in the ball
which is struck does not take place nor is
any of it transferred to the oncoming ball
[which changes its own existential modality]
but is a self-generated autopoietic reaction
and reorganisation of its own plasticity
in accordance with the laws of nature.
More importantly the
collision of the two balls takes place for
such an historically uncountable number of
reasons that it makes no sense scientifically
[though it does in the context of mans experience
and cognitive mapping of such direct observational
participation.
The notion of such a
metaphysical ‘force’ or movement' existing
is seen to be a reification of a putative
non-existential action which in some way
is thought of as being dualistically or descriptionally
'separate' from the causal object itself.
Moving causal objects do not 'have' a 'speed'
or 'momentum' - they are slowly moving or
speeding entities. What exists is not the
abstractions 'speed' or 'momentum' but human
beings existing in neurophysiological modalities
of attributing such non-existent abstract
qualities to the objects they observe phenomenologically.
Phenomena are states or processes known through
the senses rather than by intuition or reasoning,
and if reasoning were to be applied in the
case of a moving object such as a billiard-ball,
it would become apparent that it was not
the state of moving which exists - but the
physical billiard ball.
Every object in the cosmos
exists as changing dynamical causal object.
Objects HAVE to exist this way - otherwise
they would not exist in the first place.
What then exists on the
billiard or snooker table are collections
of ergodic causal objects with which the
contestants seek to occupy and reoccupy the
spatial positions occupied by other balls,
each succeeding another either directly or
randomly indirectly involving transient existential
modes. The salient existential characteristics
of the individual balls is that they are
essentially similar to other members of the
set and undergo intrinsic physical change
in analogous modes which are anticipated
by the players.
What then 'causes' one
ball to hit another? For the eliminative
determinist it is not the classical deterministic
catenulate chain of causal events which bifurcate
back endlessly into the past. Nor is it the
product of causal sequences which proliferate
like eventive fractals, as seen as it were,
from the rear-view mirror of a time machine
as it zooms from the past to the present.
The eliminative determinist points to the
fact that what exists in the cosmos now has
always existed, though in uncountable different
forms and versions, for that which is material
can never be totally eliminated. If the cosmos
had NOT always existed, and had it really
been the product of a lone creatio ex nihilo
formative event which had brought it 'into
being,' then the so-called 'first cause'
could never have eventuated, because scientific
Eliminative Determinism admits of no first
cause. Why do I make this claim? Because
if the determinist paradigm is correct, there
can be no exceptions to the physical paradigms
of causal objects; the event of the 'first
cause' must itself have had some primary
moving causal object too. If God created
the cosmos - then he must have had a God
that created him too; and a concatenation
of supreme beings must have stretched backwards
into eternity.
If one causal object
is almost identical to another, they belong
to an ergodic ensemble. In an ergodic population
such as we find on the billiard table, any
singleton is typical of the entire group.
The conspicuous physical characteristics
of one individual may be essentially almost
identical with any other member of the group.
I say 'almost' because absolute sameness
is physically impossible - every causal object
in the universe differs from every other
- for if one object were to be absolutely
the same as another - it would BE that other.
The production of biological causal objects
is allopoietic, because the offsprings of
all causal objects are materially distinct
from the parent causal objects and occupy
different temporally spatial positions. The
reproduction of causal objects is not self-production.
Now let us examine 'Energy' to try to establish
if it too actually exists? How Is Energy
Stored? Some devices that store different
forms of energy are listed below.
The above sounds quite medieval does it not?
Replace the word quantity' with the word
'property' and it is as if we have been transported
back to the days of medieval scholasticism.
Where do we find this mysterious energy that
lurks in every object?
If we were to look inside
the human body to find the place where energy
is located where would we look? Is it stored
in the same location as 'mind' perhaps? The
claim appears to be that energy is some mysterious
quantity - so let us proceed to define exactly
what is a 'fundamental quantity,' and where
it is to be found in the human body?
So let us recapitulate.
We are told that 'momentum' is 'movement'
and 'movement' is 'energy and 'energy ' is
a 'quantity' and a quantity' is quantifiable
aspects of the world, such as time, distance,
velocity, mass, and weight. But this does
not answer the question as the WHERE this
'energy' is to be found. What can guess what
the answer to this question will be from
the men in white coats - 'In the object!'
Why on earth do they not simply admit that
'energy' IS the heavy hanging lump of metal
- the wound metal spring - the battery -
the capacitor and the plastic water tank
object which ARE the energetic or ''Causal objects' that the ontological taboo forbids them
to identify?
It is beginning to feel
a little like that with this quest to find
the whereabouts of kinetic energy isn't it?
We are told that muscular activity accounts
for most of the body's energy consumption.
Muscles store energy for their own use in
the form of glycogen, which represents about
1% of their mass. This can be rapidly converted
to glucose when more energy is necessary.
Are we not entitled to wonder at this stage
if these abstractions are no more than moonshine,
and that what ACTUALLY exists is the moving
billiard ball, the distant mountain, the
heavy or weighty anvil and the glucose/glycogen
that presumably could be extracted from the
human musculature - placed in a bottle and
re-labelled with its correct name 'ENERGY.'
Do we not find ourselves in
the position of the little boy in the crowd
when the naked emperor rode by? Do we now
not suddenly realise that the abstractions
we play with are no more than anthropocentric,
ontological fairy-tales that we humans tell
ourselves and each other, because we are
unwilling to face the fact that souls, spirits,
causes, distance, weight, speed, movement,
heat, mind and the invisible clothes of the
naked ontological emperor are figments of
our imagination and although it is very counter-intuitive
to admit - THEY DO NOT EXIST!
Well up to now this has no doubt all
been good fun, for as David Hume remarked:
What we need to remember is that though the
ontological will-o'-the-wisps we have identified
do not by any stretch of the imagination
exist and are fictions - they are 'useful'
if not vitally important fictions, for if
we had not invented them we would find it
difficult to speak of the nature of the brain
or provide some cogent account of what happens
when two billiard balls bump into each other.
How difficult would it be to talk scientifically
in the absence of abstraction? Well, we will
leave that to a future paper.
We are told that when
Hume's famous billiard balls strike each
other they 'exchange momentum' and demonstrate
'changed states of motion' after the impact.
This is a misunderstanding. No 'exchange
of momentum' takes place for 'momentum' does
not exist to be exchanged or retained in
this folkloric vignette.
What exists in the real
world of Eliminative Determinism are the
entitively changing moving balls. No differentiative
'exchange' has taken place - the balls have
changed or generated their own existential
modalities - they have not received any of
the 'properties' of the other balls, because
the 'properties' do not exist to be retained,
transferred or received, and are nothing
more than a construct contrived by humans
- an excogitation whereby objects or individuals
can be distinguished by their form or behaviour
from others in the eyes of humans. But the
forms or the behaviour of the billiard balls
do not exist, what exists are the billiard
balls and the attributional humans. The humans
exist in existential modalities of assigning
homocentric notions of form and behaviour
to the balls. The billiard balls exist in
the everchanging modalities of causal objects
- oblivious to the 'fact' that they are used
for billiards - or even that they are balls.
David Hume (an avid billiards
player) commented that what we see is a 'sequence
of events' not any actual 'push' or 'force.'
Hume's perspective highlights
his genius as he strives to bring about an
ultimate correctability of our most deep-seated
convictions about the nature of the way we
perceive cause and effect.
However Hume's analysis
and contribution is not one of a new theory
of causality but an intertheoretic modification
of the old model which retains the unnecessary
and cumbersome paraphernalia of abstraction.
Though David Hume is my hero I reject his
idea that we see a 'series of events' when
we observe the striking balls.
In real life we do not see
the actual push as the two balls collide
-we think we see the two objects touch, but
although we think we see a collision or an
impact what we really see is two touching,
colliding or impacting billiard balls. Touch,
collision, impaction do not exist - action
does not exist and cannot be found anywhere
in the cosmos - only acting or causing causal
objects objects exist.
There is a view held within
folk psychology that there exists a classifiable
mental property that is not reducible to
anything physical. This mental dimension
hosts a separate mental ‘substance’ called
a non-physical ‘mind’ or ‘soul.’ There is
also a view held within the philosophy of
causality and ‘free will’ that objects such
as billiard balls host a separate ontological
‘property' or ‘potential’ - a non-physical
abstraction known as - ‘causation’.
‘Change' does not exist
- only that which changes exists. 'Cause'
or ‘causality’ does not exist - only that
which causes exists. 'Effect' does not exist
- only that which is affected exists. 'Collision'
does not exist - only that which collides
exists.
This reification of of
causal eventities into reificational events
is nothing new and indeed, in the day to
day world of ordinary life non-physical 'events'
can be described and talked about as if they
actually existed rather than the causal objects
themselves.
Thus 'The Garden Party at Saint Peter's Church'
is referred to as if it really existed, when
in fact what existed was the material causal
structure called Saint Peter's, the greensward that surrounds it complete
with beds of flowers, the hired marquees,
the trestle tables, the glasses, bottles,
plates and spoons and all the other manner
of causal paraphernalia considered necessary
in order that the 'event' could qualify for
the reified designatum 'Garden Party,' not
forgetting the causal objects known as the
priest and the attendees of course.
'States' do not exist - they are useful anthropocentric
attributions and fairytales we use to describe
that which we do not understand. States can express the existence of a state of
stillness or one of action and neither stillness
nor action exist. Only causal objects that
we perceive of as being 'still' or 'active'
exist. 'Being' and 'existence' do not exist - only that which is what it
is, and that which exists in the way that
it exists, exists.
In human interaction
the modal or causal shift into a passive
or objective existential configuration as
expressed in language bestows subjective
torpidly, submissive fecklessness upon person's
existential modality. Languages have equipped
themselves to accommodate many glaring existential
human conflicts. In formal writing. For the
author 'passivity' is condemned in the interests
of 'forceful writing and objectivity, ' but
the reason for this instinctive distaste
is little understood.
Some feminists see it
as a manifestation of a desire for male domination. 'Josephine was beaten by the policeman"
and: 'The policeman beat Josephine"
The implications of toggling the linguistic modal switch are suddenly thrown into clear focus, for
the modal switch transfers the narrative
and experiential point of view from Josephine
to that of the policeman. In other words
from the point of view of an emphatic 'masculine'
narrative. The story is then carried along
by the unfolding of fresh energetic and 'vigorously
expatiated' events. The passivity often shown
by the more sensitive male and female writers
and poets is often condemned as 'passive,'
and as demonstrating inactiveness, inertia
and submissiveness, and as concentrating
too much on the 'feelings' of the main protagonist
or hero and heroines of the story, rather
than in 'the job at hand.'
‘The modal switch’ [we will call it a ‘causal
switch’ also takes place when we describe
in natural language in a certain skewed way
an ‘event’ we encounter in our normal lives.
Consider the Following
An old lady wearing a hearing-aid is just
moving her trolley from the aisle to the
checkout in Walmart when a young man rushes
up and knocks her and her trolley over bruising
the woman's arm rather badly at the same
time. He continues running towards the exit and
disapears from sight. Later, when, helped
by one of the store assistants, the woman
has recovered and is nursing her arm. The
young man returns.
'You idiot!' she screams...'you caused this,' she shows him a large purple bruise on her
arm...'and you have smashed all my eggs and three
bottles of bourbon!"
‘It was YOUR fault you deaf old fool,' replies the panting man, 'I shouted for people to get out of the way
- I saw a parked station-wagon in the car-park
was on fire and I was rushing out to help.
I am an off-duty fireman.’
What caused the broken eggs
and bottles and bruising to the woman's arm?
Humans attribute anthropocentric notions
of: 'blame, cause, fault, initiation, responsibility’
to inanimate objects where none exists. There
is no 'causality' in the cosmos. To cause
or to change is to exist. All objects are
causing, changing, existing objects. No causal
object = no existing object. No changing
object = no existing object.
Just how far down the ladder
of causal objectivity we can clamber into
the quantum world of causal eventities below
remains to be discovered by our scientists,
but however many newly discovered ontological
levels we microscopically plunge, it will
make no difference at all to the eliminative
determinist vision.
From the countless grains of
sugar that dissolve ten times a day amongst
the tea-leaves of the British, to the discarded
hairs of my body that float down and make
landfall on my bedroom carpet. From the millions
of tons of molten nastiness that is spewed
out by the sun every few seconds, to the
causal rubbings and chafings of trillions
of tree-leaves and insect legs that grace
the forests of our world - causal objectivity
is total, universal and ubiquitous in every
corner of the cosmos. Why do we human billiard
players, tucked away in a small room, on
a small planet, in a small universe, dependent
on a small star single out the ‘collision’
of some tiny specks of matter tiny speck
of matter which we call the ‘billiard balls’
set upon on the green baize before us as
causal singularities, when the whole of the
cosmos is a moiling mass of unconcerned interaction
and change?
The answer is of course
that we humans DO have our human centred
concerns, and the concerns of the billiard
players centre upon the causal process by
which they believe they are responsible for
causing the balls to move, collide, and drop
into the appropriate pockets of the billiard
table. The fact that when they cue the ball
they are merely ephemeral, agential causal
objects occupying some minor, medial position
in vast, reticular deterministic system of
biramous catenulate chains of cosmic determination
doesn’t occur to them – and to be honest
– why should it? The fact that THEY think
they are responsible for winning the frames
and winning the pint of beer or the silver
cup is good enough for them and good enough
for most folks. For the scientist however
things appear differently. We may wonder
why it is that most people find it difficult
to understand that 'causality' does not exist?
Perhaps as T. S. Eliot said: ‘Humankind cannot stand very much reality.’
[9] Eliot 1935 p. 172
For some it may be beyond
what they can bear to accept the harsh reality
that: ‘that which exists’ is the totality
of the physical cosmos and it exists in a
causally uncaring, imperative modality, which
works itself out through the medium of a
concatenation of causal objects - in a way
that is completely disinterested, totally
oblivious, incognisant and unaware of our
lilliputian human concerns and petty attempts
to attribute meaning to or causal responsibility
to the catenulate phenomena we briefly experience
in our short existence?
REFERENCES: [1] Churchland. Patricia. Neurophilosophy, 2000. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass. [2] www. mountainmanagement. biz/glossary.
htm [3] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Energy [4] Mellendorf. Ken. Physics Instructor.
Illinois Central College. Aug 22, 2002 [5] en. wikipedia. org/wiki/Fundamental_quantity
[6] Dudinstev. Vladimir. 'Not by Bread Alone.' Hutchinson London 1957. See: http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/florry038.htm
for plot details. [7][Hume. David. 'An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding. Section 7, part 2. 3] [8] Sansom. Richard. 'Elemental Predomination.' 2006. Yahoo A. I. T. discussion list.http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/gary_cosmos.htm [9] Eliot. T. S. ‘Burnt Norton’ Four Quartets. 1969. P. 172. Faber & Faber, London |
 |
Some traditionalists might point out that
their unquestioning faith in abstractional
causation is not a defect but precisely its
strength, and that because faith is trusting
and constant, such beliefs have served mankind
well for thousangs of years. New scientific
ontological categories that have emerged
are themselves derivative of the more originary
and more phenomenologically adequate categories
that have served mankind for millennia. Eliminative
Determinism is the first antitheoretical
rather than intertheoretical doctrine which
bucks that historical trend.
