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.
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
Wow, there is a lot of hate on that message board!
ReplyDeleteI 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?
ReplyDeleteSee also:
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/creationism/lewis_naturalism.html