FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   >>  
particular with other appearances in the same piece of matter, rather than with other appearances in the same perspective. That is to say, they group together particulars having the same "active" place, while psychology groups together those having the same "passive" place. Some particulars, such as images, have no "active" place, and therefore belong exclusively to psychology. We can now understand the distinction between physics and psychology. The nerves and brain are matter: our visual sensations when we look at them may be, and I think are, members of the system constituting irregular appearances of this matter, but are not the whole of the system. Psychology is concerned, inter alia, with our sensations when we see a piece of matter, as opposed to the matter which we see. Assuming, as we must, that our sensations have physical causes, their causal laws are nevertheless radically different from the laws of physics, since the consideration of a single sensation requires the breaking up of the group of which it is a member. When a sensation is used to verify physics, it is used merely as a sign of a certain material phenomenon, i.e. of a group of particulars of which it is a member. But when it is studied by psychology, it is taken away from that group and put into quite a different context, where it causes images or voluntary movements. It is primarily this different grouping that is characteristic of psychology as opposed to all the physical sciences, including physiology; a secondary difference is that images, which belong to psychology, are not easily to be included among the aspects which constitute a physical thing or piece of matter. There remains, however, an important question, namely: Are mental events causally dependent upon physical events in a sense in which the converse dependence does not hold? Before we can discuss the answer to this question, we must first be clear as to what our question means. When, given A, it is possible to infer B, but given B, it is not possible to infer A, we say that B is dependent upon A in a sense in which A is not dependent upon B. Stated in logical terms, this amounts to saying that, when we know a many-one relation of A to B, B is dependent upon A in respect of this relation. If the relation is a causal law, we say that B is causally dependent upon A. The illustration that chiefly concerns us is the system of appearances of a physical object. We can, broadly speakin
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   208   209   210   211   212   213   214   215   216   217   218   219   220   >>  



Top keywords:

matter

 

psychology

 

physical

 

dependent

 

appearances

 

physics

 

question

 
sensations
 

system

 

particulars


relation
 

images

 

sensation

 

events

 
causally
 
causal
 

member

 

opposed

 

active

 

belong


important

 

constitute

 

remains

 

aspects

 
speakin
 

included

 

characteristic

 
grouping
 

primarily

 

sciences


including

 

easily

 

difference

 

secondary

 

physiology

 

amounts

 

chiefly

 

dependence

 
converse
 

Before


answer

 

discuss

 

illustration

 

concerns

 

logical

 

movements

 

mental

 

Stated

 
respect
 

object