tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post6206072740219981801..comments2024-01-22T11:42:42.772+08:00Comments on FideCogitActio : omnis per gratiam: I watched this…Codgitator (Cadgertator)http://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-27243348903930512952010-05-27T13:16:02.150+08:002010-05-27T13:16:02.150+08:00Codgitator,
Ha, don't worry! I'll be star...Codgitator,<br /><br />Ha, don't worry! I'll be starting my own blog soon. Precisely to avoid the whole 'blogging via comments' thing.<br /><br />re: panpsychism, I guess it appeals to me in some respects. It's not that I endorse it, really, so much as I think it's a sturdier view that I suspect will be/is being quietly rehabilitated. Really, shades of it even seem present in your charitable construal of materialists on consciousness. What's going on in ponds and x-ray plates is what's going on in the mind, but the mind is just more complex and somehow 'deeper'? Sounds like panpsychism to me.<br /><br />That said, I don't see it as posing threat to Thomism, really - and I recall you once said that you don't find it all that objectionable from that point of view anyway. One reason I tend to bring it up is because my gut tells me it (and neutral monism) is poised to become the 'new materialism', so to speak. You already saw something similar to this when arguing Ross' paper, where physicalism sure started to seem like (I think you called it) shmysicalism before long. Hell, if you read the SEP entry on physicalism, you'll see talk of how physicalism isn't in conflict with panpsychism, and even the suggestion that it's not necessarily in conflict with the idea that what we think is physical is actually in an 'essential or ultimate respect' (!) mental - even though that 'seems strange'.<br /><br />Putting it another way, one thing that fascinated me about The Last Superstition was the bold move Ed made re: Aristotileanism, where he pointed out that a number of naturalists were saying things that (if they were serious about them) actually committed them to a broadly Aristotilean metaphysic, yet if they weren't serious (just using a figure of speech, etc) their explanations weren't really explaining anything, and they were back to eliminative materialism. Panpsychism intrigues me because Strawson (and others, such as the author I linked to) make a similar move: Claiming that, if we're serious about consciousness existing, yet serious about 'physicalism/monism', then we're stuck with panpsychism.<br /><br />The comedian in me sees no more amusing way to critique materialism than to point out how few of its adherents really adhere to it.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-62221547360213202762010-05-27T12:27:16.828+08:002010-05-27T12:27:16.828+08:00Crude:
There you go again. Running a blog via th...Crude: <br /><br />There you go again. Running a blog via the comboxes of others! haha<br /><br />I grant your quibble about consciousness for materialism. Indeed, even as I typed the words, I had to pause to formulate a not too unsatisfactory expression. I chose "sensation of neural complexity," though it seems to beg the question about there being consciousness (sentience) in the first place, because by "sensation" I mean simply a registering of changed stimuli in a dynamic system. In that sense, an x-ray plate has a very low-level (crude?) "sensation" of radiated wave-particles. As does a pond struck by a pebble: the ripples are a "sensation" of having been impinged upon. A common tactic I see from materialists is just to say that human consciousness is in principle the same, but since it is rooted in such a vastly more complex system, it seems more robust, more conscious. It's a poor tactic, I admit, but I just wanted to express a generous construal of at least an attempt for materialist consciousness. <br /><br />As for panpsychism, I seem to recall it appeals to you and I think I once wrote about it in an analogical framework in a combox at Dr. Feser's. Honestly, it doesn't bother me too much, from a Thomistic perspective, much less from a Maximian perspective. Insofar as the Logos energizes all logoi of all entities, they all 'consciously' hum with affection for that primal Energy of the Creator. I take Whitehead to be the Kant of the C20: he can't be evaded, has strikingly altered the terrain, and will eventually be overcome in a synthetic way by genuine metaphysics. He gets less mainstream press than he ought, as a Kant-size figure, perhaps because we intuitively just agree with him and look for something more challenging, less obvious. "Duh, everything is a process. Everything changes. You know, evolution, man." Thinking we already "get," and agree with, him, we pass him by, without respecting the seeds he's planted for metaphysical progress. <br /><br />Best,Codgitator (Cadgertator)https://www.blogger.com/profile/00872093788960965392noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-6018197084888233072010-05-26T21:13:45.796+08:002010-05-26T21:13:45.796+08:00Off topic, but I was reading your posts on divine ...Off topic, but I was reading your posts on divine simplicity of at Dr Feser's blog. Just wanted to say thanks and keep up the good work. You provided some clarity for me which was sorely needed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7126049.post-21063861900510088942010-05-23T12:57:45.417+08:002010-05-23T12:57:45.417+08:00I think your comment about the "scam" as...I think your comment about the "scam" aspect of Joey Chaos is not only dead on, but may not go far enough. Some things I noticed.<br /><br />* The viewer is reminded, more than once, just how scary and weird and challenging and, etc, Joey Chaos is. It's almost as if it's being used as a cue, practically screaming at the viewer "This is the part where you feel awed!" Or, put another way, it's as if the good people at Hanson Robotics are madly shaking a bell, hoping and praying onlookers start salivating.<br /><br />But, what if Joey isn't scary or weird at all? What if there's no challenge there? What if this is very similar to someone holding up a calculator and saying 'Behold! A machine, ADDING! This should shake you to your very core!'? Again, I get the feeling this question is one it's hoped the viewer shouldn't ask.<br /><br />* The same goes for the word use. 'I feel', 'I'm going to miss you', 'I do things like a human...' Even the word 'I' alone. The moment someone starts to ask about these words - "What does Joey mean? Hell, is there a Joey? Is there any"one" there who can really intend or mean ANYthing?" - the show comes apart. We end up left with all the most interesting questions unanswered, and the implied accomplishments of the company abandoned. There are still accomplishments left, but not the juicy ones originally promised.<br /><br />* I'd actually have to take issue with one aspect of your 'materialist view of humans' talk. I don't think it's right to say materialists would believe consciousness is just 'the sensation of neural complexity'. Sensations are a mental category that require consciousness to begin with. I think the truth is "materialists" don't know what the hell to do with sensation, short of (at least pretending to be) denying it. An interesting article on that front is <a href="http://www.independent.com/news/2010/feb/23/conscious-or-not-conscious/" rel="nofollow">this one</a>.<br /><br />Ultimately though, there's another part I have to agree with you on: The double-edged sword for materialists. In fact, I generally see science - for all the talk of scientism and praise of it by materialists - as being pretty unfriendly to popular naturalism in general. But, to paraphrase you, this is enough for one comment.Crudehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04178390947423928444noreply@blogger.com