tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post4416616839123807135..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Reply to Johnson on nonmental reasoningVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-60564512335415552002017-09-01T18:33:59.633-07:002017-09-01T18:33:59.633-07:00OP"...cannot reliably produce true beliefs.”
...OP"...cannot reliably produce true beliefs.”<br />--Nothing can. One might hold a belief that is true, but how could you or I or anybody reliably determine the truth of any particular belief? We can't. We can only use analytical techniques for which we consider there to be good reasons to think will lead our belief to be more likely to be true than if we had not engaged in what we consider to be such preferable analytical techniques.<br /><br /><br />" If LeBron were to rely on explicit reasoning to decide whether to shoot or pass the ball to Kyrie Irving, the Cavaliers would never get into the NBA playoffs,"<br />--That assumes non-conscious brain activity is not "explicit". I assert all brain activity is explicit, but our consciousness brain process does not have a direct monitoring link path to non-conscious brain activity <br /><br />" But what computers have is what philosophers call derived intentionality, not original intentionality. "<br />--Computers can now learn, so that distinction now breaks down.<br />StardustyPsychehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12493629973262220492noreply@blogger.com