File spoon-archives/bhaskar.archive/bhaskar_1997/bhaskar.9710, message 84


From: "Tobin Nellhaus" <nellhaus-AT-gwi.net>
To: <bhaskar-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU>
Subject: Re: BHA: theorya/theoryb
Date: Thu, 16 Oct 1997 00:10:26 +0300


Hi Howie--

> Now, maths has never been my strong suit. I do wonder, though, whether it
is
> legitimate to argue, as Tobin does, that something can be a subset of
> something else and still "add" something new to its parent set?

No, the subset has ("adds") a characteristic that the parent set
hasn't--the subset doesn't alter the rest of the parent set.  For example,
Set A = all apples; Set B = all golden apples; Set C = all the golden
apples in my shopping bag.  A > B > C.

Anyway.  I don't grasp how a subjective state could be real without also
being actual, or at least partially actual.  Something that is real but not
actual is basically a set of potentialities or possibilities which have not
(yet) been realized.  (RB said so himself, during the conf.)  A subjective
state, however, is necessarily already realized--certain physiological and
psychological processes have occurred to produce a thought or feeling. 
Then, *subsequent* to the production of the subjective state, that
now-existing subjective state has certain powers, and arguably, some (but
not all) of those are never realized, and so in that sense are not actual. 
But the state itself, whatever powers it does or does not exert on the
world, is itself still actual, and must be on pain of not being in
consciousness!

---
Tobin Nellhaus
nellhaus-AT-gwi.net *or* tobin.nellhaus-AT-helsinki.fi
"Faith requires us to be materialists without flinching": C.S. Peirce


     --- from list bhaskar-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005