tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post5948514067647262003..comments2023-10-31T05:06:08.839-07:00Comments on Reality Apologetics: If You Can Read This, You Have Intentionality (But Your DNA Doesn't), Part I: Some DefinitionsJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09594949524027204661noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post-52563646493748012842013-01-16T17:30:03.783-08:002013-01-16T17:30:03.783-08:00top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]c-onlin...top [url=http://www.c-online-casino.co.uk/]c-online-casino.co.uk[/url] coincide the latest [url=http://www.realcazinoz.com/]realcazinoz.com[/url] free no set aside hand-out at the chief [url=http://www.baywatchcasino.com/]loose largesse casino <br />[/url].Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post-9702634964325513642011-08-17T12:01:12.844-07:002011-08-17T12:01:12.844-07:00Visit us now to come by more information and facts...Visit us now to come by more information and facts at all events Come to see us contemporary to grasp more knowledge and facts at all events [url=http://www.polandlimoservice.com]transport osób warszawa[/url]Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post-47925602316483616182010-12-04T14:31:19.097-08:002010-12-04T14:31:19.097-08:00Hi, very interesting post, greetings from Greece!Hi, very interesting post, greetings from Greece!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post-16444904194446565092007-09-18T13:55:00.000-07:002007-09-18T13:55:00.000-07:00I'd like to see where this goes, so I'm looking fo...I'd like to see where this goes, so I'm looking forward to your future posts.<BR/><BR/>For the record, DNA is language, but language isn't really that special. Representations proliferate; they are all over the place. Its what you do with them that matter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post-46192300083607358942007-09-18T13:35:00.000-07:002007-09-18T13:35:00.000-07:00I disagree (not surprisingly). First, though, tha...I disagree (not surprisingly). First, though, thanks for the compliments--I hope it is clear (both to you and everyone else reading this blog) that as much as we snipe at each other, I too have a great respect for your theories and work; I think they're well thought out and very well articulated, just mistaken.<BR/><BR/>In any case, I recognize that he and I hold very similar view on meaning; that's part of the reason I find this so interesting. You've said before that many of my theories show a tendency toward theism, a charge that I--of course--have heartily denied. I'd like to show that one can hold a theory of meaning like mine (in which symbols come to have meaning by fulfilling direction of fit clauses in intentional states), and still coherently be an atheist. <BR/><BR/>I think his argument is easily defeated--it rests entirely on the claim that DNA is a language, which seems false (and maybe even question begging) to me.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09594949524027204661noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9215117687149149963.post-86109435709210381832007-09-18T07:28:00.000-07:002007-09-18T07:28:00.000-07:00Seriously, Jon. If you actually engage this guy yo...Seriously, Jon. If you actually engage this guy you're going to lose this argument, because his view is a natural extension of any view that believes in original intentionality. His view is different from yours just in the fact that he doesn't understand how information works, or how evolution works, or how language works. He isn't a supernaturalist on your view (he doesn't talk about spirits or souls), he just thinks that the world can be influenced by minds (things that design and have 'will').<BR/><BR/>See, and you can't correct his mistake, because you don't understand how representations work, or how design works, or how the mind works, and without those bits of the puzzle you are left with this mysterious thing called 'intentionality' that has to come from somewhere. You call that somewhere 'mind', but thats the same thing Marshall is talking about, except he calls it 'information' and it comes from the 'will'. You both agree that physical processes alone can't account for mind/information, and so you are in the same boat he is.<BR/><BR/>You don't want to take the theist conclusion, and Marshall seems more than happy to play to the ID retards, but you guys have the exact same position on everything that matters; his conclusion is totally incidental to his basic position, which you completely agree with. Its the position that makes you say things like this:<BR/><BR/>"It should be obvious to most people that the series of pixels "the cat is on the mat" has absolutely no intrinsic meaning--that is, there's nothing physical about that particular arrangement of pixels that makes it have anything to do with cats, mats, or the relationship between the two."<BR/><BR/>Thats the core of his argument, and thats the core of your argument, and neither of you think there is any alternative to holding this view. But this view is utter bullshit.<BR/><BR/>Now this guy's argument is a load of crap, so I'm sure you can spend several blog posts giving minor corrections to the sloppy work he does in that article. There's a wealth of bad analogies and non-sequiturs and misunderstandings of basic scientific principles, and you are a much better thinker than this guy, so I'm sure it will keep you busy. But correcting those mistakes is a losing enterprise, because you aren't willing to correct his fundamentally mistaken position, because on all the issues that actually matter, you're on his side.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com