Chalmers' account of modal epistemology relies too heavily on his implausible epistemic two-dimensional semantics. See Yablo's and Bealer's papers on this. Byrne's "Cosmic Hermeneutics" and Perry's book, Knowledge, Possiblity and Consciousness are helpful here as well.
Dr. Reppert, I am an ex-philosphy of religion student of yours(~1994) at GCC. We had some interesting conversations. You might remember me (Walter Brown) as the son of Walter Brown (Jr., I'm the 3rd) - the creationist. Anyway, I read your Argument from Reason paper. I did'nt understand it all, but I don't see why "Reason" is so mysterious. It is a function, amoung many, that brains (minds), do. As stomachs digest, complex nervous systems reason. You could make the Argument from Digestion could'nt you? Functions of the brain are the way they are because they are selected for in natural selection - reason is good for an organisms (in our linage) suvival/differential reproduction. Therefore, higher organisms seem to have this ability to a greater and greater degree as their brains-to-body ratios increase (in our linage brain size evolution went up, and brain functions , reason being one amoung many, increased). All mammals have it. What's the mystery? Thx, Walter Brown
Dr. Reppert, On more reflection and reading I'm thinking the mystery is - when does nonthinking (nonrational) neurons/synapes/neural transmiters become thinking (rational)thoughts/rational inferences/cognition? And that this undiscovered link is an opening for a supernatural causeation? We are just starting to really study the brain, give us several centuries before we give up on naturalistic explanations. Have'nt naturalistic explanations always been shown to be more accurate than supernaturalist ones in the fullness of time and study?
Dr. Reppert, this seems similar to the undiscovered link between when nonlife became life. There are those that posit that this is a place for a supernatural causation. They say nonlife can not cause life. They think nature obeys words and our meanings of them. There is so much gray between meanings/words and so many new emergent properties with increasing complexity... Thx, WB
4 comments:
Chalmers' account of modal epistemology relies too heavily on his implausible epistemic two-dimensional semantics. See Yablo's and Bealer's papers on this. Byrne's "Cosmic Hermeneutics" and Perry's book, Knowledge, Possiblity and Consciousness are helpful here as well.
Dr. Reppert, I am an ex-philosphy of religion student of yours(~1994) at GCC. We had some interesting conversations. You might remember me (Walter Brown) as the son of Walter Brown (Jr., I'm the 3rd) - the creationist. Anyway, I read your Argument from Reason paper. I did'nt understand it all, but I don't see why "Reason" is so mysterious. It is a function, amoung many, that brains (minds), do. As stomachs digest, complex nervous systems reason. You could make the Argument from Digestion could'nt you? Functions of the brain are the way they are because they are selected for in natural selection - reason is good for an organisms (in our linage) suvival/differential reproduction. Therefore, higher organisms seem to have this ability to a greater and greater degree as their brains-to-body ratios increase (in our linage brain size evolution went up, and brain functions , reason being one amoung many, increased). All mammals have it. What's the mystery? Thx, Walter Brown
Dr. Reppert, On more reflection and reading I'm thinking the mystery is - when does nonthinking (nonrational) neurons/synapes/neural transmiters become thinking (rational)thoughts/rational inferences/cognition? And that this undiscovered link is an opening for a supernatural causeation? We are just starting to really study the brain, give us several centuries before we give up on naturalistic explanations. Have'nt naturalistic explanations always been shown to be more accurate than supernaturalist ones in the fullness of time and study?
Dr. Reppert, this seems similar to the undiscovered link between when nonlife became life. There are those that posit that this is a place for a supernatural causation. They say nonlife can not cause life. They think nature obeys words and our meanings of them. There is so much gray between meanings/words and so many new emergent properties with increasing complexity... Thx, WB
Post a Comment