tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post112000111055974286..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Part of "Defending the Dangerous Idea"Victor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120706486103932062005-07-06T20:21:00.000-07:002005-07-06T20:21:00.000-07:00Some extreme forms of dualism emphasize the indepe...Some extreme forms of dualism emphasize the independence of the nonphysical mind from the brain, while others, like Hasker's Emergent Dualism, emphasize the close relation between mind and brain. A computer that has been shut off is still a computer.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120393263276377392005-07-03T05:21:00.000-07:002005-07-03T05:21:00.000-07:00To follow up my question again:-'An unconscious ma...To follow up my question again:-<BR/><BR/>'An unconscious man lacks intentionality of any kind. How then does a system lacking original intentionality gain original intentionality?'<BR/><BR/>What is the dualistic view of how a unconscious man regains intentionality and consciousness?<BR/><BR/>Did the soul decide to restore consciousness? <BR/><BR/>Unless you posit that the soul has a consciousness and intentionality that the unconscious man is totally unaware of, I don't see how dualists can tackle this problem.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120299985342332022005-07-02T03:26:00.000-07:002005-07-02T03:26:00.000-07:00'Lewis' claim that:"To talk of one bit of matter b...'Lewis' claim that:"To talk of one bit of matter being true about another bit of matter seems to me to be nonsense."'<BR/><BR/>Surely Lewis's comment is true.<BR/><BR/>Only propositions can be true or false.<BR/><BR/>And a proposition is not a bit of matter.<BR/><BR/>However propositions can be encoded in symbols, and symbols can be manipulated purely mechanically to produce new true propositions, without the manipulator being aware of what the symbols mean.<BR/><BR/>Naturalists think that there is only manipulating of syntax going on in a human brain, and out of this syntax comes semantics.Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120188526441844622005-06-30T20:28:00.000-07:002005-06-30T20:28:00.000-07:00A man aroused by a beautiful woman is in various i...A man aroused by a beautiful woman is in various intentional states, however, the condition of being aroused is not, on my view, an intentional state. It is the same thing with being hungry. A person who is hungry invariably has all sorts of propositional attitudes related to the hunger, however, the hunger is not an intentional state.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120168956149964482005-06-30T15:02:00.000-07:002005-06-30T15:02:00.000-07:00The context of my discussion of intentionality was...The context of my discussion of intentionality was that the terms used by Carrier to describe intentional states seem to me to be terms that presuppose both intentionality and consciousness.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120109006946970672005-06-29T22:23:00.000-07:002005-06-29T22:23:00.000-07:00Bill writes ' To say that we derive our consciousn...Bill writes ' To say that we derive our consciousness from God is to say that God creates us as conscious beings possessing intrinsic or original intentionality.'<BR/><BR/>If God can create conscious beings possessing original intentionality, could we also create such beings?<BR/><BR/>How did God create us as beings possessing original intentionality?<BR/><BR/>We are descended from beings that at one stage lacked original intentionality.<BR/><BR/>Was there really a being whose biological parents lacked original intentionality, but who was endowed by God with original intentionality?<BR/><BR/>Such a being would have been virtually indistinguishable from its parents, so how would its behaviour prove that it had original intentionality , while its parents behaviours showed that they did not?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120107002674016302005-06-29T21:50:00.000-07:002005-06-29T21:50:00.000-07:00To follow up my question.An unconscious man lacks ...To follow up my question.<BR/><BR/>An unconscious man lacks intentionality. How then does a system lacking original intentionality gain original intentionality?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120106032038937542005-06-29T21:33:00.000-07:002005-06-29T21:33:00.000-07:00Victor writes that it need not be true that a non-...Victor writes that it need not be true that a non-conscious person is not purely physical.<BR/><BR/>What is there about an unconsious man that is not physical?<BR/><BR/>And how does an unconsious man regain consciousness?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120068745685392512005-06-29T11:12:00.000-07:002005-06-29T11:12:00.000-07:00Steven: There is a sense in which, for a theist, o...Steven: There is a sense in which, for a theist, our intentionality is derived, if the fact that we have intentionality is explained in terms of God's creating us in such a way that we possess intentionality. On the other hand, a theist does not have to maintain that, for example, the meanings of words are determined by some act of God as opposed to being determined by the way we use them. The meaning of the word "rook" is determined by how it is used by humans in the game of chess, not by divine fiat. <BR/><BR/>The statement "No conscious beings are completely physical beings" does not entail "All non-conscious beings are purelyl physical beings." That would be to commit a logical fallacy.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120021038043553322005-06-28T21:57:00.000-07:002005-06-28T21:57:00.000-07:00If we derive our consciousness from God, then sure...If we derive our consciousness from God, then surely we have derived intentionality, and might well be purely physical systems.<BR/><BR/>How does consciousness begin?<BR/><BR/>If a man is unconscious , is he purely physical? How does this physical system regain consciousness? What has to be added to this physical, unconscious man?Steven Carrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11983601793874190779noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-1120016489882623222005-06-28T20:41:00.000-07:002005-06-28T20:41:00.000-07:00If I put a couple of pieces of fresh meat out for ...If I put a couple of pieces of fresh meat out for my dogs, they will most likely come and eat it. The odor will give them real information, and they will change their behavior based on that. Are we going to say that they are experiencing intentional states? <BR/><BR/>The intentionality that I am immediately familiar with is my own intentional states. That's the only template, the only paradigm I have. I wouldn't say that animals are not conscious, and if I found good evidence that animals could reason it would not undermine my argument, since I've never been a materialist about animals to begin with. Creatures other than myself could have intentional states, and no doubt do have them, if the evidence suggests that what it is like to be in the intentional state they are in is similar to what it is like to be in the intentional state that I am in.Victor Repperthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.com