This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Yeah, what happened to Dangerous Idea 2?
"intentional ingredients have been smuggled in through the back door."Carrier gave a perfectly good natural explanation in intentionality. You don't see it because you make the up-front assumption that it is non-physical. Rather than listening and understanding what he is saying, you block it all out because your mind was made up before the argument was ever made.You complain that he uses the word "about" in his discussion of aboutness, and this is proof of the circularity of his argument. But he already explained what it meant, and that explanation sails right past you. Are you aware, Victor, that every single word in the dictionary has a circular definition, by your standards?The reality is that we can come to an understanding of something such as the word "about" from a physical perspective, and then we can use that word in further discussion without having to "smuggle in" your a priori assumptions. And Carrier has done that. The only one guilty of smuggling in assumptions is you, Victor.
Rather than listening and understanding what he is saying, you block it all out because your mind was made up before the argument was ever made.If ever there was an example of the pot calling the kettle black, this is it.
It's funny that each of these comments requires proof you're not a robot, since at this point Skep can really be replaced by one easy."No you!""I'm angry but I don't understand!""You can't be right, that's scary!"But, let's have fun here.Carrier gave a perfectly good natural explanation for intentionality, Skep? Splendid. Then I suppose you'd be willing to explain it in your own words, and defend it against criticisms here.Please provide the explanation. Let's see if you can even grasp what Carrier is saying, much less Victor.
Post a Comment