Thursday, November 17, 2005
An Internet Infidels discussion I started on intentionality.
I put a link to my response to Carrier on intentionality. I started the discussion and chose the topic, but somehow I'm guilty of the red herring fallacy. I didn't know that was possible.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Wow, there is a lot of hate on that message board!
I personally can't believe that the naturalists on the board aren't aware that there are plenty of other naturalists who think mental reductionism is problematic. Searle himself is a materialist, even if he thinks subjectivity isn't reducible. Or take Davidson if one doesn't like Searle. Or, if analytic folks can keep their minds open for just a little bit, leave Anglo-American philosophy for a sec and investigate some continental figures. Geesh!
Just as problematic, but for dualists is the alternative of where consciousness goes when you sleep; or how damage to a portion of the brain can affect one's entire demeanor and personality; or how many "consciousnesses" and "free wills" there are in split-brain patients (one or two?); or the imperfections and inherent imprecisions and errors of language and reasoning (and how hard won--sometimes taking centuries--each victory of understanding is); and lastly, why such a mind in dualistic tune with a supernatural realm can only attain the level of a grunting animal if it is raised only by and only with other non-human animals throughout its life?
See also:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/lewis_naturalism.html
Post a Comment