Feser on Intentionality

Many scientists think their scientific competence excuses them from having to do their homework in philosophy before commenting on the subject.

--Redacted from Edward Feser, "Coyne on Intentionality"



http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/05/coyne-on-intentionality.html#more

I know the conditions, I know them not,...

Kant set out to discover the pre-conditions of experience while denying that those pre-conditions themselves are objects of our experience.

--redacted from Gordon Clark, Religion, Reason, and Revelation, Nutley NJ: Craig Press, pages 61-62.

The Atheist of Oz

Methodological gods are necessarily crypto-theistic, and unquestioned assumptions of any kind are always the -real- gods getting a pass. But implicit self-exemption is so much fun! At least, as long as the Christians don't get wise to the meta-theoretic con. Fortunately for atheism, they rarely do.

Realizing My Machinehood

The observations used to describe behavior are the only enduring evidence available for concluding that something has consciousness.

Consequently, once a physical system is constructed that will do anything observable that a human can and is therefore indistinguishable in behavior from a person, we will not be able to deny it consciousness, and therefore personhood.

To argue that it's impossible for machine intelligence to be or become a person is to argue that it's impossible for many beings to be conscious who are currently thought to be human.

In fact, if the requirements stated in the argument against machine consciousness are at some point no longer being met by certain people, then that same argument could be used to revoke their personhood, and thus deny their humanity.

The point is that if you list the observable requirements that are not met in machine intelligence but are required to attribute personhood, you end up eliminating certain groups of humans who for one reason or another do not themselves fulfill all those requirements either. Once the two classes of beings are observably indistinguishable (which factor is usually ignored in reactions to this argument), it will be difficult to tell whether you are talking about one or the other in making an argument for -or- against personhood. In that situation, the argument will not even be able to get started, since the being in question is observably the same, which is the key premise of the original problem. Since one cannot at that point -begin- the argument with a predisposition either way, what would then be left as evidence?

To restate this somewhat differently: If we list the observable requirements that are not met in machine intelligence but are required to attribute consciousness to human persons, we may end up eliminating certain humans as being conscious, who don't strictly fulfill all those requirements either.

On the other hand,, once technology develops to the point where the two classes of beings are observably indistinguishable (a factor almost always ignored in reactions to this argument but will fade as AI and humanoid robotics technology develops), it will be impossible to tell whether we're talking about one or the other in making an argument for -or- against consciousness in specific beings.*

Since we could not at that point even -begin- an argument for or against the existence of consciousness in such an indistinguishability scenario with a predisposition either way, nothing would be left to count as evidence. At that point, the problem of the definition of consciousness will reassert itself with the challenge to develop new criteria at a higher level of abstraction.

And because of the implication for human beings, once indistinguishability obtains in both appearance and behavior, as it surely will, we will not be able to deny consciousness---or personhood---to machines.*

--*Compare Michael Arthur Simon, "Could there be a Conscious Automaton?", American Philosophical Quarterly, Volume 6, Number 1, 1969, pages 71-78.

Revenge of the Concept Mummies

Theistic Case Builder: An Open-Source Community Philosophical Development Project

This spreadsheet is merely a table in a database. It's just a quick-and-dirty way to jump-start an open-source database for the edification of anyone who wants to use it. Right now it contains only my redaction of a brief first part Craig's opening statement in the Craig-Harris debate. I will do this to the entire debate, and hope to complete it over the next week or two. I will then start reading the blog reviews for new things to include so that people can see how new material can be integrated into an overall logically continuous sequence.

Thanks to Norman Geisler for sparking this idea in me, from the finely detailed outline of argumentation he gave me decades ago. I still have it and will eventually integrate the argumentative essence of it's theistic components into this database.

I will try to show in a real-world way, how the views, arguments, objections, and counter-objections can be collected, how the assumed premises can be readily identified, how they can all be organized in a simple numbered sequence, and how the arguments can be inferentially tracked with precision. If you think of a better way of doing this, that will be a major Mission Accomplished for me.

Although it is -my- database, it can be copied or downloaded, and then edited or enhanced any way anyone else wants to. Let a thousand architectonic flowers bloom inferentially.

Here's an explanation of the simple table/spreadsheet format:

Column 1: A hard-coded and at this point arbitrary number for the statement.
Column 2: The statement itself.
Columns 3-6: The number of any statement or statements that imply the current statement.
[ap=assumed premise is the default until a reason is given.]
Column 7: Note: This could be the source from which I got the statement, to help anyone who needs to write papers. It's optional for purely analytic purposes, but I'm including it for illustrative purposes and I will document it as much as possible given my time constraints.

For now, there is no automated way to get changes or additions populated to other versions, but this will at least push through the concepts and the possibilities.

As mine is edited, you should be able to get a feel for how any statement can be questioned or countered or objected to, how this can get visually noticed so that the oppositions are easily distinguished but with readability, and how supporting arguments eventually are to be numbered and organized for both clarity and flow, in spite of the strict system of derivation tags and numbering.

It's not the final word on how to do this, but it's -something- that might prevent a lot of duplication in separate efforts, and the data can be easily ported to whatever anyone else might want to use it for.

Right now, you'll have to just message me if you want something included and are not interested in constructing one of these things yourself, and I'll try to be as accommodating as I can in adding to the thing. Or you can just observe the changes as they occur.

But the idea is to enable and motivate others to do the same kind of thing, while helping those who don't have time to do it to profit from this organized expanding collection of positions and arguments. Comments and contributions from anyone interested, is encouraged.


https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Atcf0vXDCaTNdDl4N0hiaWpSS21UbUZSbnB1SkJXMWc&authkey=CNzxoegK&hl=en#gid=0

The Criterial Argument for the Existence of God - Version 2.0

[Version 2.0 is below this, because of the way the search results appear on the internet.]

Version 5:

Certain assumptions are logically basic criteria of all thought. They are the standards of analysis for any possible mind.
 
Therefore, these background standards of analysis are necessary for recognizing and knowing that certain objects of our experience are minds or persons.
 
But only a mind or person using those standards can recognize and know whether any object is a mind or person, and to use these standards for this purpose is to imbue them with mind- and person-determining powers.
 
Therefore, the ultimate standards of thought are necessarily used to determine whether or not an object is a mind or person.
 
And relations between these assumptions and the objects in question (minds and persons) are themselves objects that can be predicated only by a mind.

Therefore the ultimate criteria of thought are indistinguishable from an ultimate truth-determining mind or person, since they do nothing of themselves but only authorize and supervise the evaluation of truth claims due to their necessarily-assumed authority and guidance.
 
Therefore, these criterial assumptions are necessary for recognizing and knowing that certain objects of our experience are minds or persons.
 
Any argued denial of the necessary universality and logical authority of this system of assumptions logically depends on those same assumptions for its own truth, meaningfulness, significance, goodness or value, and so on.
 
Therefore, this system of assumptions necessarily adjudicates all truth claims about everything including itself, as well as their denials.
 
Therefore, this system of assumptions is omniscient as the truth-evaluating instrument of all knowledge, ultimately authoritative as the final court of appeal, sovereign as the universally decisive inferential factor, omnipresent in it’s physically universal applicability, and transcendent in being perfectly functional at any level of supervisory authority over all issues concerning all domains of predication.
 
Furthermore, these assumptions are the specifying standards for defining everything including minds or persons and God.

Consequently, this system of necessary and logically basic assumptions are as ultimate and mind-like or person-like as any personal ultimate God is conceivable of being.

Treating this aggregate mind-structured object as a reality-wide guide in all thinking about everything is therefore unavoidably necessary, even in reasoned denials that this object has that status as an ultimate universal ruling system factor.
 
To proceed in thinking at all, we must approximate whatever reason is always indicating as the perfection standard of thought.
 
Moreover, there is no controversy about the ultimate authority of what this standard or specification reveals to me, even if I don't live up to it, or perfectly actualize the rational ideal in some way.

Those actions are what they are only when judged by that same rational ideal.
 
Any contemplation of these ultimate assumptions of mind such as reason, formal logic, the rule-set of an ordered context of reality, a hierarchy of values, and the obligation to proceed according to a system of rules---all methodological primitives---results in an endless stream of new knowledge when applied to our ongoing experience of the world.
 
Consequently, these ultimate decisive rules and ideals of thought actually communicate knowledge and even wisdom by merely contemplating them and their relationship to our belief systems and our world of objects.
 
The fact that we must reference these principles implies an equally ultimate purpose.
 
And an ultimate purpose, necessarily depends on a hierarchical set of equally ultimate values.

This system of assumptions is a unified instrument and object of cognition, which necessarily obligates, defines, and influences the mind as the ultimate operating system for thinking about anything.

Consequently, all thinking already necessarily both assumes and references an unchanging and enduring God-level personal mind object made up of prescriptive criterial evaluative principles of thought taken together as a system for the possibility of thinking, that adjudicates everything including mind and personhood themselves, and makes possible inquiry into anything and everything that can be thought.
 
Therefore, in all defining senses, this comprehensive mind object is indistinguishable from an ultimate personal mind or God.
 
The rationally necessary is necessarily the existentially real.

Any argument denying this is self-contradictory in trying to rationally necessitate its own truth about the existentially real in spite of what that argument asserts.
 
And if two objects are indistinguishable from each other with respect to all of their properties, then they are identical.

Therefore, this comprehensive mind object---this necessarily operating rational ideal system of thought---is itself an ultimate personal mind or God.

[NOTE: The only problem I see with this argument is in what constitutes a person. The ultimate nature, authority, and role of reason is indisputable.]

[Version 2.0 follows]

Our most basic assumptions are necessarily used and referenced to be able to think about anything.

Therefore, our most basic assumptions are necessary to recognize and know that certain objects of our experience are persons.

But only a person can arbitrate whether an object is a person.

Therefore, taken together like the operating system of a computer, the standards and fixed values we operate with as running assumptions or control statements, are necessarily referenced, and treated as the unified predicative and adjudicative structure of an ideal ultimate personal mind.

This criterial structure must be applied universally.

Therefore, this non-local rational structure arbitrates all truth about everything including itself.

Hence, there is a sense in which this structure is omniscient as the instrument of all knowledge, ultimately authoritative as the final court of appeal, sovereign as the universally decisive inferential factor, omnipresent in it’s physically universal applicability, and transcendent in being perfectly functional at any point in the spacetime nexus.

Consequently, the characteristics of this structure are just as ultimate and inherently mind-like as any personal ultimate God is conceivable of being.

Treating this aggregate intellectual object as a reality-wide guide in all thinking about everything is therefore unavoidably necessary, even in reasoned denials that this object has that status as an ultimate universal ruling factor.

I often wonder about the reliability of my computer, but not about reason. Without even thinking about it, I necessarily try to approximate to some achievable extent whatever reason is always unwaiveringly indicating as the perfection standard of thought.

Moreover, there is no controversy about the ultimate authority of what it reveals to me, even if I don't live up to it, or perfectly actualize the rational ideal in some way.

Furthermore, we merely need to contemplate these ultimates of mind such as reason, formal logic, the rule-set of an ordered context of reality, a hierarchy of values, and so on, in order to discover an endless stream of new knowledge when applied to our ongoing experience of the world.

Consequently, there is some sense in which these ultimate decisive rules and ideals of thought actually communicate knowledge and even wisdom by merely thinking about them and their relationship to our belief systems and our world of objects.

Lastly, the necessity of our referencing of these principles itself implies both purpose and value, which are equally ultimate in this comprehensive set of guiding operational principles. We reference inferential factors for various purposes, and those purposes are based on a hierarchical set of values.

Consequently, I believe in God because my thinking already necessarily assumes and references an unchanging and enduring god-level object of mind that arbitrates all things including personhood, makes inquiry of anything and everything possible including itself, and is indistinguishable from an ultimate personal mind or God.

A Proverb for Discriminating Atheists

Question protected and unargued universals, and a lot of mind-gods suddenly disappear.