BV38. I tend to think of process as a word that covers a class of actualities. Process is also a word that covers a class of descriptions of the actualities, just as the word blueprint represents a whole array of distinct static designs or the term computer program covers a whole array of unique algorithms. In many cases, the word process implies a particular description which we may think of as having input values, an algorithm (or something like one) -- which is also a description -- and an output value.
That is to say, in many cases the word process stands for some complex set of motions, or changes, between time to and ta. Though the motions may be complex, the input and output values, when they are well defined, tend to fall within specified ranges. In any case, we need to distinguish between a description and the actuality that it is intended to represent. To say that any process is only composed of its moving particles or changing units is to make a category mistake, or, anyway, a mistake. Reduction into parts does not prevent a process description from representing an actual process.
So granting that when one says process, one is speaking a name for a class of actualities. Also, the general term process is not an entity itself (except in a "higher order" semantic sense). Now we may admit that any perceived object is a construction of the observing apparatus, which selects out of the environmental input those data sets that are recognized as useful (perhaps) information (in the Shannon sense). That is to say, whatever stream of information is "found" in the environment, is taken to represent an entity or actuality associated with that information. Hence, on that basis, the concepts of river and mind both represent actualities.
These days we realize that probably most changes in the mental process correspond to patterns of neuron firings. The question is whether there are any changes going on in some immaterial substance or presence or whether, as John Locke argued, matter can think if God so rules.
That is to say, in many cases the word process stands for some complex set of motions, or changes, between time to and ta. Though the motions may be complex, the input and output values, when they are well defined, tend to fall within specified ranges. In any case, we need to distinguish between a description and the actuality that it is intended to represent. To say that any process is only composed of its moving particles or changing units is to make a category mistake, or, anyway, a mistake. Reduction into parts does not prevent a process description from representing an actual process.
So granting that when one says process, one is speaking a name for a class of actualities. Also, the general term process is not an entity itself (except in a "higher order" semantic sense). Now we may admit that any perceived object is a construction of the observing apparatus, which selects out of the environmental input those data sets that are recognized as useful (perhaps) information (in the Shannon sense). That is to say, whatever stream of information is "found" in the environment, is taken to represent an entity or actuality associated with that information. Hence, on that basis, the concepts of river and mind both represent actualities.
These days we realize that probably most changes in the mental process correspond to patterns of neuron firings. The question is whether there are any changes going on in some immaterial substance or presence or whether, as John Locke argued, matter can think if God so rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment