If our knowledge of causality has human agency as its primary instance, so that our basic concepts from physics are derived from reflection on our own engagement in the world... including our acts of pushing and pulling, AND if such engagements are always, as deliberate acts, are fueled by the desire for the infinite (inasmuch as the JUDGMENT that we will act thus is derived from such a desire), then there is no such thing as a system of which a human is a part that could be closed.
This is a nice way to try to avoid being cornered re the irreality of the self if you're a reductionist, for you can assert that a pattern obtains at the microscopic level that is not all that unlike the pattern found at the societal level. No need for the one self that does it all: instead, you have many sub-selfs that compete for dominance or take turns guiding the whole. The problem with this is, however, that the voters/officials are all zombies. None of them thinks about the whole as such. And perhaps none of them thinks even about themselves (unless one is a panzoist). None of them makes a comparison of alternatives. The more this proposed democracy seems like a zombocracy, the more consciousness will be seem to be epiphenomenal. Furthermore, if the oneness of the self is less real than the multiplicity of explanatory neural parts, then why can't each of these neural parts be conceived of as democracy as well? And why not parts of these parts, et...
Comments