Recent Responses
I don't think that consciousness is explicable on physical terms yet I don't think that that means that consciousness is necessarily any more explicable on the idea of a purely mental reality. (ie. Descartes idea of a thing that thinks and who's essence is thinking) What philosophers think along the same lines as I do?
Charles Taliaferro
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
Probably the best known philosopher who thinks along similar lines is Thomas Nagel. While he believes that consciousness cannot be accounted for or understood in light of our current conception of the physical world, he is hoping (or has faith?) that we may eventually have a conceptual revo... Read more
I read in one of my dad's linguistic books that some languages have exactly three basic color words: black, white, and red. I wondered if this meant that for the people who speak these languages, everything that is not black and white is called red (the sky is red, grass is red, etc.) -- or if they just don't have a word to describe anything that is not black, white, or red. If it is the latter, then how would they describe the color of the sky and grass? Noah L. Age 11
Richard Heck
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
Hi, Noah, thanks for writing us with your question.
I'm not sure which book you were reading, and I have never heard of such languages myself. To be honest, I kind of doubt there really are such languages. Have you ever heard about how Eskimos have lots of words for "snow"? Well, at least a lot of... Read more
If we assume that both computers and the human mind are merely physical, does it follow that a sufficiently advanced computer could do anything that a human brain could do?
William Rapaport
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
As Richard points out, logically, no, it does not follow. Just because two things are both (merely) physical, it does not follow that one of them can do anything that the other can do, not even if both of the (merely) physical things are brains. My pencil is a physical thing, but it can't do... Read more
I hope this makes sense... I've always been curious about attempts to understand the way our minds work. To me, it seems paradoxical and in some ways even hopeless. I suspect that in order for the mind to understand or learn something new, the mind itself (or at least the way it works) needs to be more complex than what it it processing. In other words, the "size" of the new information cannot exceed the "capacity" of the mind itself in order to store it. An example of this would be the way computers work: Let's say I have a PC with an old operating system (Windows 2000) and I wish to run a software CD designed for a more advanced operating system (Windows 8). My old computer will most likely not recognize any of the information on that new CD, either because my old computer requires more free space (capacity of mind) or because the information stored on that CD requires a different kind of technology to decrypt (complexity of idea). Thus, you can use a computer to fully process programs (according to its own capacity), but can you use it to fully process itself? Similarly, if one accepts the idea that the mind, like a computer, is built to understand and make sense of the world outside itself, is there really any hope of ever fully understanding the mind itself?
Richard Heck
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
I don't work in this sort of area myself, but this kind of view has been held. The position is known as mysterianism, and its main proponent is Colin McGinn. Considerations in the same ballpark also fuel the (in)famous arguments against mechanism due to John Lucas.What certainly does seem clear is... Read more
Is it wrong to desire sex with a woman when your primary interests are only physical and hence you might not even know or have spoken to the woman you desire sexually? Or does that only become problematic when a man expresses interest to that woman in a manner which is unsolicited and hence it becomes an unwanted and creepy sexual advance?
Richard Heck
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
I don't see anything wrong about desiring to have sex with someone you don't know. I rather suspect this is a completely normal aspect of human sexual experience, and that it is simply a reflection of sexual attraction. Tons of people fantasize about sex with celebrities, for example, or some beau... Read more
Do infinite sets exist? Most mathematicians say yes, but to me it seems like infinite sets can only exist if we use inductive reasoning but not deductive reasoning. For example, in the set {1,2,3,4,...} we can't prove that the ... really means what we want it to. No one has shown that the universe doesn't implode before certain large enough "numbers" are ever glimpsed, so how can we say they exist as part of an "object" like a set. We can only do this by assuming the existence of the rest of the set since that seems logical base on our experience. But that seems like a rather weak argument.
Richard Heck
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
The argument here actually requires two more premises: (iv) that different numbers have different successors and (v) that 1 is not the successor of anything. If (v) failed, 1 could be its own successor and the only number. If (iv) failed, then 2 could be 1's successor and also its own. It's perhap... Read more
If a man/woman kills someone and gets in an accident then gets amnesia is the person still accountable for their past actions on the grounds that they're a "new person," because they have no traits of old self?
Oliver Leaman
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
Certainly. I now responding to your question but if, as may happen, I forget what I have said, it does not mean I am not responsible for what I have written.
Log in to post comments
When someone asked: "Do you think jealousy is morally wrong or is it a natural thing to be jealous?" I'm surprised the answerer didn't address the implied false dichotomy in the question: Some things are both natural AND morally wrong. In fact, morality in general serves as a restraint from our doing what comes naturally.
Oliver Leaman
March 8, 2013
(changed March 8, 2013)
Permalink
I suppose the point is that it is particularly difficult to avoid doing and feeling what comes naturally. To a degree we might admire someone morally who never felt jealousy but we would find it difficult to understand their character. It is the struggle to control our natural feelings which as y... Read more
I am looking for resources on a seemingly simple issue. I believe the seeming simplicity of this issue is quite deceptive: What is a "surface?" What allows anything to "touch?" Where does philosophy stand on this issue? Thank you for your time.
Jonathan Westphal
March 7, 2013
(changed March 7, 2013)
Permalink
You should consult:Stroll, A., 1979, ‘Two Concepts of Surfaces’, Midwest Studies in Philosophy 4: 277-291.Stroll, A., 1988, Surfaces, Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.The two concepts of a surface are the physical one, in which a surface can be pockmarked or scored, and the geometri... Read more
Can we know for sure that the external world exists? I was wondering about it for a while, and yesterday I thought that it must. You see, when I drink alcohol, it is an empirically experienced factor that affects my mind. That would mean that my mind is connected to my body. And because I can observe, smell and taste alcohol, that would be a proof that my senses can be trusted, at least to a degree on which they operate. Is that a valid argument?
Stephen Maitzen
March 7, 2013
(changed March 7, 2013)
Permalink
You asked, "Can we know for sure that the external world exists?" That will depend, of course, on what's required for such knowledge. Some philosophers have said that such knowledge requires a successful proof of the existence of the external world, but many other philosophers (especially in th... Read more