The Human Question

Our answer to this question is a function of how we understand laws of nature. If we see them as descriptions of forces at work--that is, as things forcing each other to behave a certain way, then we imagine that consciousness or biology would add another force to the mix, one that works against the other forces. If we see laws of nature as descriptions of what things naturally try to do or as attractions, then the "trying to" or "seeking" that pertains to biology, animality or rationality does NOT countervail the lower level but rather gives it a super-directedness.  Think here of how an architect doesn't direct the bricklayer by applying force against the bricklayer's efforts (at least not on a good day).  Instead, the architect gets the bricklayer to direct his or her efforts toward a goal that is not just bricklaying, but housebuilding. A helpful contrast here is between the Euclidian and non-Euclidian conceptions of parallel lines.  One looks at t...

To call the problem of the unity of consciousness the “bundling problem” is misleading: it gives the impression that that what we sometimes call "consciousness" is a cluster of ideas or thoughts that have mysteriously been yoked together.  A better metaphor would be the “electromagnetic problem”: that is, the problem of how what from the outside appears to be two very different things is really both at once, always inseparable yet always distinct from each other? What is true of electricity and magnetism is true in many ways of consciousness, e.g., of desire and cognition.

One who measures with instruments and explains with metaphors.

The laws of nature are just teleology's way of acting anonymously.

Before one can talk clearly about moral relativism, one must first address relativism at a more general level, a level that includes statements that have nothing to do with practical or moral matters.  Suppose you are talking to a man about whether the sun is a gaseous star possessing a gravitational pull on the earth that keeps our planet in orbit around it.  He denies that this is true.  You cannot tell whether he is sincere or just being silly, and you don't know how to argue scientifically about matters that we tend take for granted as true.  You simply object, therefore, that science seems to show that he is wrong in his denial.  He replies, "That is true for you, but not for me." You may not at this moment have the resources to be able to present a cogent (convincing) argument about the sun and gravity, but you can point out that his last comment is incoherent.  By "incoherent" I mean that, regardless of what one thinks of astronomy, that last sente...