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