This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Nice to see Kiefer has time for theology and ethics when he's not busting the knuckles of terrorists! 24 meets Philosophy 101.
"True, natural selection can account for the adaption of various things for various purposes, but never for purposes of knowledge."This is a ludicrous statement. It is not only an unsupported assertion, it is also quite wrong. All evolutionary adaptations 'for various things for various purposes' can, in fact, be viewed as an acquisition of knowledge. For a nice exploration of this, read _'The Beginning of Infinity'_ by David Deutsch.
If it is ludicrously wrong it should be easy to demonstrate its wrongness :pWhich definition/understanding of knowledge are you using? If I program my computer to say that the sky is blue, does it know that the sky is blue? Why/why not?
Natural selection can only account for mental things if the mind is a fundamental part of reality with causal power. Such an ontology, however, can only be idealism and/or double aspect monism (with mind having agent causality). The second we admit either, we admit that the entirety of reality has its own mind, and once we admit that, we're in the territory of theism, specifically monalatry or monotheism.
Post a Comment