|
7548
|
Classes, grouped by a convenient property, are logical constructions [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
Classes or series of particulars, collected together on account of some property which makes it convenient to be able to speak of them as wholes, are what I call logical constructions or symbolic fictions.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.125)
|
|
A reaction:
When does a construction become 'logical' instead of arbitrary? What is it about a property that makes it 'convenient'? At this point Russell seems to have built his ontology on classes, and the edifice was crumbling, thanks to Wittgenstein.
|
|
16973
|
Explain logical necessity by logical consequence, or the other way around? [Correia]
|
|
Full Idea:
One view is that logical consequence is to be understood in terms of logical necessity (some proposition holds necessarily, if some group of other propositions holds). Alternatively, logical necessity is a logical consequence of the empty set.
|
|
From:
Fabrice Correia (On the Reduction of Necessity to Essence [2012], 3)
|
|
A reaction:
I think my Finean preference is for all necessities to have a 'necessitator', so logical necessity results from logic in some way, perhaps from logical consequence, or from the essences of the connectives and operators.
|
|
7549
|
If my body literally lost its mind, the object seen when I see a flash would still exist [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
My meaning may be made plainer by saying that if my body could remain in exactly the same state in which it is, though my mind had ceased to exist, precisely that object which I now see when I see a flash would exist, though I should not see it.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.126)
|
|
A reaction:
Zombies, 70 years before Robert Kirk! Sense-data are physical. It is interesting to see a philosopher as committed to empiricism, anti-spiritualism and the priority of science as this, still presenting an essentially dualist picture of perception.
|
|
7546
|
A man is a succession of momentary men, bound by continuity and causation [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The real man, I believe, however the police may swear to his identity, is really a series of momentary men, each different one from the other, and bound together, not by a numerical identity, but by continuity and certain instrinsic causal laws.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.124)
|
|
A reaction:
This seems to be in the tradition of Locke and Parfit, and also follows the temporal-slices idea of physical objects. Personally I take a more physical view of things, and think the police are probably more reliable than Bertrand Russell.
|
|
7550
|
We could probably, in principle, infer minds from brains, and brains from minds [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
It seems not improbable that if we had sufficient knowledge we could infer the state of a man's mind from the state of his brain, or the state of his brain from the state of his mind.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.131)
|
|
A reaction:
This strikes me as being a very good summary of the claim that mind is reducible to brain, which is the essence of physicalism. Had he been born a little later, Russell would have taken a harder line with physicalism.
|
|
7552
|
Six dimensions are needed for a particular, three within its own space, and three to locate that space [Russell]
|
|
Full Idea:
The world of particulars is a six-dimensional space, where six co-ordinates will be required to assign the position of any particular, three to assign its position in its own space, and three to assign the position of its space among the other spaces.
|
|
From:
Bertrand Russell (The Ultimate Constituents of Matter [1915], p.134)
|
|
A reaction:
Not a proposal that has caught on. One might connect the idea with the notion of 'frames of reference' in Einstein's Special Theory. Inside a frame of reference, three co-ordinates are needed; but where is the frame of reference?
|