Philosophy of mind is more important than the philosophy of language and epistemology
in [Logic]
|
Prev: historical query
Next: instructor solution manual for Artificial Intelligence A Modern Approach 2e by Russell, Norvig
From: Immortalist on 31 May 2010 21:00 On May 31, 5:36 pm, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: > Immortalist : > > > On May 30, 8:01 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On May 31, 8:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > >> > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of > >> > mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. > > >> So what did it used to be, the philosophy of mountaineering? > > > Well if you learned to read properly you would see that he was comparing > > three branches of philosophy and which have declined somewhat > > What, exactly, would you accept as signs of decline? > Maybe "decline" isn't the right word. I should have said which are currently more important in light of the current issues, technologies and research, needs philosophical analysis. Personally I see the emergence of fMRI scanners and the associated "newly" invented research methodology, as probably causing mind/brain philosophy to accend in relative importance. Just as particular social and political issues cause applied ethics to punk the rest of philosophy and the philosophers better adapted to deal with where the world is going and not worried about some academic dispute wank off. > > > > and which > > have come to dominate; all the while determined by the direction of > > empirical science and its recent findings. > > >> Philosophy has always been 'of the mind, about the mind'. > > >> To go 'beyond language' , use telepathy. > > >> "Rescue the truth?"...I can see why he has dilemma. > > >> "He May As Well Try To Cath The Wind" Donovan Leach. > > > The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a > > person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or > > misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" is > > fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply > > does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as well > > expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the person. > > >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html > > >> BOfL > > -- > huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: huge on 31 May 2010 21:33 Immortalist : <snippage> > Then you agree that Searle's version of Monist token/token theory is not > false or explains best empirical science's finding on the brain, or were > you trying to say that absolutely all and any theory of the mind is > false? Is this really an either - or type of problem? Who, besides Searle, even still address token/token theory? Here is Hofstadter on Searle's philosophy of mind from "I Am a Strange Loop, p. 81: "...it makes perfect sense to discuss living animals and self-guiding robots in the same part of this book, for today's technological achievements are bringing us ever closer to understanding what goes on in living systems that survive in complex environments. Such successes give the lie to the tired dogma endlessly repeated by John Searle that computers are forever doomed to mere 'simulation' of the processes of life. If an automaton can drive itself a distance of two hundred miles across a tremendously forbidding desert terrain, how can this feat be called merely a 'simulation"? It is certainly as genuine an act of survival in the hostile environment as that of a mosquito flying about a room and avoiding being swatted." <snip pages of quotes> -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: huge on 31 May 2010 21:36 Immortalist : > On May 31, 5:36 pm, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: >> Immortalist : >> >> > On May 30, 8:01 pm, "bigflet...(a)gmail.com" <bigflet...(a)gmail.com> >> > wrote: >> >> On May 31, 8:25 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: >> >> >> > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of >> >> > mind has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. >> >> >> So what did it used to be, the philosophy of mountaineering? >> >> > Well if you learned to read properly you would see that he was >> > comparing three branches of philosophy and which have declined >> > somewhat >> >> What, exactly, would you accept as signs of decline? >> >> > Maybe "decline" isn't the right word. I should have said which are > currently more important in light of the current issues, technologies > and research, needs philosophical analysis. > > Personally I see the emergence of fMRI scanners and the associated > "newly" invented research methodology, as probably causing mind/brain > philosophy to accend in relative importance. Just as particular social > and political issues cause applied ethics to punk the rest of philosophy > and the philosophers better adapted to deal with where the world is > going and not worried about some academic dispute wank off. That is all very good, but what I know about Searle suggests that he is one of the most persistent wankers. See my other answer posted recently. > > >> >> > and which >> > have come to dominate; all the while determined by the direction of >> > empirical science and its recent findings. >> >> >> Philosophy has always been 'of the mind, about the mind'. >> >> >> To go 'beyond language' , use telepathy. >> >> >> "Rescue the truth?"...I can see why he has dilemma. >> >> >> "He May As Well Try To Cath The Wind" Donovan Leach. >> >> > The Straw Man fallacy is committed when a person simply ignores a >> > person's actual position and substitutes a distorted, exaggerated or >> > misrepresented version of that position. This sort of "reasoning" is >> > fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position simply >> > does not constitute an attack on the position itself. One might as >> > well expect an attack on a poor drawing of a person to hurt the >> > person. >> >> >http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html >> >> >> BOfL >> >> -- >> huge: Not on my time you don't. -- huge: Not on my time you don't.
From: sarge on 31 May 2010 23:02 On 31 Maj, 02:25, Immortalist <reanimater_2...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > because mental phenomena form > the bridge by which we connect > with the rest of the world. I think it needs to be pointed out that the above is biased. It is a philosophical position not a neutral starting off point.
From: sarge on 31 May 2010 23:06
On 31 Maj, 03:12, huge <h...(a)nomailaddress.com> wrote: > Immortalist : > > <should be marked as quoted?> > > > ...For a number of important historical reasons, the philosophy of mind > > has become the central topic in contemporary philosophy. For most of the > > twentieth century the philosophy of language was "first philosophy." > > Other branches of philosophy were seen as derived from the philosophy of > > language and dependent on results in the philosophy of language for > > their solution. > > > The center of attention has now moved from language to mind. > <snippage> > > Mind: A Brief Introduction - John R. Searle > > Searle's reputation itself has fallen because of the failures > intuition pumps like 'philosophical zombies' and 'Chinese symbols' > have been largely destroyed, IMNSHO, by the likes of Minsky, > Dennett, and Hofstadter. If he thinks philosophy of mind is > important, he should do it better! > > -- > huge: Not on my time you don't. Dennett and Minsky would agree with Searle, however on this issue. As far as his two 'intuition pumps' they are both still written about regularly. So they are still pumping intuitions. Not too many people are pure Platonists either, nevertheless Plato has a good repuation. It's a strange way to think of judging someone's worth. |