[MD] Quick one: causation

[skutvik at online.no]

Hi David.

Pleased to meet you (or have you been here before?).

12 Jan. you  wrote:

> Dear Chris
> I have reasons for believing that a strictly physical explanation of a
> performed action by an individual is possible. They start with Kant's
> assertion that Quality is an a priori synthetic judgment and a
> characteristic of mind just like time and space. They continue with
> the realization that mind is not mental but rather physical,
> biological, entity and therefore, intentionality can be explained by
> the laws of physics. But the whole explanation cannot be done quickly
> so I'll leave it here and get back to it as its own topic in future.

Kant did not exactly speak about Quality in the MOQ sense, but to 
begin with a kind of the beginning.  Western philosophy has 
always had SOM as its premises,  but then came the discovery of 
the empiricists that all qualities, color, sound, taste,smell, touch 
were produced by the senses -  were subjective - Berkeley went as 
far as to claim that  there was nothing "out there". everything was 
subjective. 

Then Kant who set out to save reason from this mad "pure reason"  
and claimed  there were something he called "forms of perception" 
built into existence itself,  not learned FROM experience rather 
what experience was filtered through These were TIME, SPACE 
and CAUSATION that made up OUR experience "das Ding für 
Uns" (the world for us)  But note that Kant did not shake the 
foundations of SOM, the was still a world out there "das Ding an 
Sich" (the world in itself).

But the MOQ has taken leave of SOM , so I'm a bit surprised that 
some of us keep speaking as if SOM's artificial problems  has any 
bearing inside the MOQ with statements like yours 

> ... "They continue with the realization that mind is not mental but
> rather physical, biological, entity and therefore, intentionality can
> be explained by the laws of physics". 

Yes, we know that the SOM struggles with such self-inflicted 
problems stemming from its faulty premises that the S/O split 
being existence's ground. The MOQ's premises however is the 
DQ/SQ split and then the static levels, the said S/O split is 
intellect's STATIC value. Kant's just cemented SOM, but has no 
bearing on the MOQ.      

Bo