From: Matt the Enraged Endorphin (mpkundert@students.wisc.edu)
Date: Tue Jan 14 2003 - 16:53:02 GMT
Scott,
Scott said:
Actually, I don't see where I am begging any question (up to the point that
faith takes over). I am arguing that the belief that perception (or anything
mental) can be derived from the non-mental requires that the non-mental be
non-local. This implies that the Darwinist viewpoint is useless to explain
anything mental.
Matt:
You're begging the question when you say, "the Darwinist viewpoint is
useless to explain anything mental." The pragmatist sees that, agrees, and
says that's why pragmatists think that Mind, the Mental, and Consciousness
are all pseudo-problems that lead us back to metaphysics, which is best
avoided. The pragmatist doesn't want to explain the mental. That's part
of why she takes the linguistic turn. We stop talking about mind and start
talking about sentences. Where you see a problem, the pragmatists don't.
Or more precisely,
Matt said:
They've left it off as one of those problems that is best redescribed in
language where there's no problem.
Scott said:
And I'm saying that it cannot be described, since it is what describes.
Matt:
As far as I can tell, we are both begging the question. For either of our
positions to argue to each other, we'd have to agree on one or the other of
these two statements, which we are not going to do. We each see our own
statement as being the most useful i.e. is the best way for things to hang
together. We don't have enough premises in common to argue about this, we
can only show our two different pictures.
Matt
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Jan 14 2003 - 16:47:43 GMT