ANIMAL cognition and desire, from the appetite of a clam to the optical systems of vultures and frigate birds, is supposed to have neurobiological explanations resultant from, if not reducible to, universal laws of physics. That is a minimal and modest project for epistemology naturalized, one to be assisted by specialized sciences.
There is a larger and bolder project of epistemology naturalized, namely, to explain human thought in terms available to physical science, particularly the aspects of thought that carry truth values, and have formal features, like validity or mathematical form. That project seems to have hit a stone wall, a difficulty so grave that philosophers dismiss the underlying argument, or adopt a cavalier certainty that our judgments only simulate certain pure forms and never are real cases of, e.g., conjunction, modus ponens, adding, or genuine validity. The difficulty is that, in principle, such truth-carrying thoughts2 cannot be wholly physical (though they might have a physical medium),3 because they have features that no physical thing or process can have at all.
Saturday, April 18, 2015
Immaterial Aspects of Thought by James Ross
Blowing the whistle: But, Emperor Evolutionary Materialist Scientism (by being self-falsifying) is parading around naked . . .
1] Truth does not exist (Is that a true statement?)2] Nothing is absolute (Is that absolutely true?)
3] I do not exist (You must exist to deny that you exist)
4] Science is the only way to know (Can you scientifically prove that?)
5] Only what can be perceived by the five senses exists (Can you prove that by the five senses?)
6] Nobody can know anything for sure (Do you know that for sure?)
7] Nobody can know anything about God (How do you know that?)
8] Talk about God is meaningless (Since it is a statement about God, this statement is meaningless too)
9] Reality is just your interpretation, objective reality does not exist (That’s just your interpretation)
10] “‘Everything we think and do is the function of our genes/nervous system’”: Is this belief itself just the result of genetic/neutral activity? If so, why trust it — or any belief we have? If your belief happens to be right, it’s just by accident” [2]
11] There are no beliefs (You expect me to believe that?) [3]
12] Everything is meaningless (So is that statement)