Skip to main content

questions for a reductive materialist, the one and the many, numerical vs. formal identity

When I entertain the same belief at two different times, it seems that two acts are directed toward numerically one object.

If so, then how does it even seem to be the case that the two different acts are directed toward the same object?

Surely it cannot be through the formal identity of the two: that may (or may not) be a necessary condition, but it is not a sufficient one.  For example, I may do the following:

1. think the same thing twice without reflecting the second time on the fact that I have previously thought it.

In such a case, formal identity might suffice for the sameness of the object of two belief acts.  But something more seems to be going on in the situation that I describe below

2. think not only of the same sort of thought directed toward the same object twice, but also to note the sameness of these two thoughts.

The second case would seem to involve something more than formal identity of the second act with the first--otherwise there would be no difference between the two cases.

One may try to solve this problem by proposing that the something extra found in the case number two a representation of the first act.  But in response to this proposal I must ask, "how does one know that this representation is a representation of the first?

I don't think that one who relies upon inner representation can give a satisfactory answer to this question, for it leads to an infinite regress of representations.

My answer would be that there  must be some way in which we are non-representationally aware of the previous act as directed toward that same as that toward which we are presently directed.

I tend to think that the closer a theory of mind is to reductive materialism, the more it will be beset by the sorts of the problems just laid out.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

P F Strawson's Freedom and Resentment: the argument laid out

Here is a summary and comments on the essay Freedom and Resentment by PF Strawson.  He makes some great points, and when he is wrong, it is in such a way as to clarify things a great deal.  My non-deterministic position is much better thanks to having read this.  I’ll summarize it in this post and respond in a later one. In a nutshell: PFS first argues that personal resentment that we may feel toward another for having failed to show goodwill toward us would have no problem coexisting with the conviction that determinism is true.  Moral disapprobation, as an analog to resentment, is likewise capable of coexisting with deterministic convictions. In fact, it would seem nearly impossible for a normally-constituted person (i.e., a non-sociopath) to leave behind the web of moral convictions, even if that person is a determinist.  In this way, by arguing that moral and determinist convictions can coexist in the same person, PFS undermines the libertarian argument ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Dembski's "specified compexity" semiotics and teleology (both ad intra and ad extra)

Integral to Dembski's idea of specified complexity (SC) is the notion that something extrinsic to evolution is the source of the specification in how it develops. He compares SC to the message sent by space aliens in the movie "Contact." In that movie, earthbound scientists determine that radio waves originating in from somewhere in our galaxy are actually a signal being sent by space aliens. The scientists determine that these waves are a signal is the fact that they indicate prime numbers in a way that a random occurrence would not. What is interesting to me is the fact that Dembski relies upon an analogy with a sign rather than a machine. Like a machine, signs are produced by an intelligent being for the sake of something beyond themselves. Machines, if you will, have a meaning. Signs, if you will, produce knowledge. But the meaning/knowledge is in both cases something other than the machine/sign itself. Both signs and machines are purposeful or teleological...
Post a Comment
Read more

Richard Dawkin's problem with God

Beliefnet has published an interview by Laura Sheahan with biologist Richard Dawkins, who employs evolution in support of atheism. In the second part of the interview, Sheahan says to Dawkins: "You criticize intelligent design, saying that 'the theistic answer'--pointing to God as designer--'is deeply unsatisfying'--presumably you mean on a logical, scientific level." Dawkins then replies to the interviewer: "Yes, because it doesn't explain where the designer comes from. If they're going to emphasize the statistical improbability of biological organs—'these are so complicated, how could they have evolved?'--well, if they're so complicated, how could they possibly have been designed? Because the designer would have to be even more complicated." My reply: Dawkins does not explain WHY the designer of biological organs would have to be more complicated than the organs he designs. He does not think that such an explanation is...
Post a Comment
Read more