Lexicon of Arguments

 

I 266
Function/Searle: a function has no separate layer. E.g. the heart has no function, which would be added to its causal relations. Brain: by elimination of the level of the deep unconscious, the "physical causation" dissolves into nothing.
>Functionalism, >Functional explanation.
I 267
The normative component is in the eye of the beholder. The connection of mental content does not need to have a mental content itself (e.g. delusions).
>Content, >Empirical content, >Observation, >Deception.
- - -
III 24
Function/Searle: a function always precedes the object: we do not perceive a table simply as an object. (Cf. objet ambigu, Paul Valéry). But nature does not know of functions.
III 25
It is nature immanent, that the heart pumps blood, but immanent is the flow, merely attributed to the function. The function only exists in a system of previous value allocations - there, no other facts are detected than causal facts.
III 26
Larry Wright: if Z is the function of X, then 1. there is X, because there is Z, 2. Z is a consequence of that there is X. SearleVs: that would eliminate the observer relativity of the function.
III 27
Function/SearleVsMillikan: functions are always relative to the observer (only "flow" immanent). Millikan: functions arose evolutionary.
>Evolution/Millikan.
SearleVs: so we can introduce everything and call it relevant. This does not explain the normative component of functions.
Old dilemma: there are either only raw causal relations or real "functional" functions.
III 50
Animals can assign functions to objects.
>Animal.