tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post5488458822769829086..comments2024-03-28T10:15:27.193-07:00Comments on Edward Feser: Reading Rosenberg, Part IVEdward Feserhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13643921537838616224noreply@blogger.comBlogger133125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-33538195754277816822012-05-20T23:57:38.919-07:002012-05-20T23:57:38.919-07:00Well I really enjoyed parts 1-3. But part 4 seems ...Well I really enjoyed parts 1-3. But part 4 seems to struggle at the beginning and fall apart by the middle. Which is a shame as this essay purports to be a critique of Rosenberg, which is curious because Rosenberg from by second hand reading does not seem to be particularly sophisticated, philosophically.<br /><br />"And, I would add, if they were to bite the bullet and accept that there is genuine intentional content at least at some very low level of physical reality, they will have implicitly given up a physicalist conception of matter and revived an Aristotelian commitment to finality or “directedness” as a fundamental aspect of the natural order."<br /><br />Unfortunately the reason why they don't "bite the bullet" is that they see no need to. I can describe a chess playing computer in terms of intentionality, or in terms of logical/mechanistic processes. Both approaches are useful, but the intentional or teleological is redundant if you wish to explain in terms of the fundamental natural order.<br /><br />Now I'm sympathetic to those who are critical of Scientism, but appeals to Aristotelian teleological principles is silly beyond words. It amounts to an appeal to a type of Vitalism, except applied to everything including physics. The world, and philosophy, has moved on.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-17595966590331352552011-12-31T00:16:45.193-08:002011-12-31T00:16:45.193-08:00If memory serves, the current Rosenberg position i...If memory serves, the current Rosenberg position is eliminativism when it comes to most biological categories and concepts.<br /><br />Check his web site for his most recent papers on the topic.Greg Ransomnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-67126750947085883052011-12-24T12:19:28.010-08:002011-12-24T12:19:28.010-08:00So if Australian aborigines are isolated from Eski...<i>So if Australian aborigines are isolated from Eskimos, they belong to different species?? </i><br /><br />No, because they can still interbreed.<br /><br />But then using the ability to interbreed as a hard deliminator for species isn't a good idea... as it removes people who cannot reproduce from the species (a man with a genetic defect that renders him incapable of producing sperm would then not be a member of the same species).<br /><br />But then there isn't a good way to create hard limits on what constitutes a species. Consider that there is considerable evidence that our H.Sapien Sapiens ancestors interbred with H.Neanderthals. The evidence that it happened is genetic, so obviously a H.Sapien Sapiens and H.Neanderthals produced viable offspring.<br /><br />It simply highlights that our classification of groups of living things into species is an artificial construct hammered on top of the natural world.<br /><br /><i>They are one kind of thing: "wheat grains." The "heap" you are talking about has no essential relationship among the grains. They are related only accidentally, by location. In a species, otoh, there is some essence in virtue of which the individuals form a kind of thing.</i><br /><br />Sure, and by that same token we can refer to "organisms" (wheat grains) and "species" (heap)... with organisms only related "accidentally" by genetic similarity.StoneTopnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-84812077503013808702011-12-18T13:56:05.762-08:002011-12-18T13:56:05.762-08:00Now the Aristotelian tradition has, of course, an ...<i>Now the Aristotelian tradition has, of course, an account of what life is. Living things, it says, are those which exhibit immanent causation as well as transeunt (or “transient”) causation... Immanent causal processes are those which terminate within the cause and tend to its good or flourishing (even if they also have effects external to the cause).</i><br /><br />Hi Ed,<br /><br />As programmer, I write software that detects errors in the system, of which it is a part, and takes corrective action. For instance the program can choose to restart or terminate faulty sub-systems/part for the benefit of the whole. It would seem that according to the Aristotelian definition of life the system would be alive since it is showing signs of immanent causation.<br /><br />Can you please help me see how this conclusion is erroneous?Catholic Programmerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15757744573394413666noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-421165957901360032011-12-17T15:57:07.489-08:002011-12-17T15:57:07.489-08:00My condolences to your family, Ben.My condolences to your family, Ben.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-47885928067086056502011-12-15T23:19:51.972-08:002011-12-15T23:19:51.972-08:00Sad to hear that, Ben. Condolences.Sad to hear that, Ben. Condolences.some kanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12312599784024098652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-59127208617750486832011-12-15T23:11:30.695-08:002011-12-15T23:11:30.695-08:00My sister-in-law has also died today.
2011 will b...My sister-in-law has also died today.<br /><br />2011 will be my Annus horribilis.<br /><br />First my Mother-in-Law at the end of Feb then last month his sister then my wife's brother's wife.<br /><br />God have mercy on their souls and the soul of Hitchins.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-36803691452491187212011-12-15T22:33:36.180-08:002011-12-15T22:33:36.180-08:00Kyrie, eleison.Kyrie, eleison.some kanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12312599784024098652noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-69708803003920342112011-12-15T21:37:12.857-08:002011-12-15T21:37:12.857-08:00Hitch has died in Texas:
http://www.vanityfair.co...Hitch has died in Texas:<br /><br />http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2011/12/In-Memoriam-Christopher-Hitchens-19492011Joshuahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03854212736162113327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-90443244463478332942011-12-15T20:21:30.103-08:002011-12-15T20:21:30.103-08:00Bobcat:
I have no idea. :PBobcat:<br /><br />I have no idea. :Pdgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-65278996398706712712011-12-15T19:34:22.269-08:002011-12-15T19:34:22.269-08:00Dguller,
I have the article, but I don't know...Dguller,<br /><br />I have the article, but I don't know how to post it. How do you do that?Bobcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04797941051438316014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83979796342957227182011-12-15T16:53:22.869-08:002011-12-15T16:53:22.869-08:00Ray Ingles: if a "space shuttle" can be ...Ray Ingles: <i>if a "space shuttle" can be an Aristotelean substance, then why not a robot?</i><br /><br />Sorry if I wasn't clear. The space shuttle is not an Aristotelian substance either.Mr. Greennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14741221045707829922011-12-15T16:03:27.997-08:002011-12-15T16:03:27.997-08:00"I can sensibly speak of an "atomic bus ..."I can sensibly speak of an "atomic bus queue operation". "<br /><br />When speaking of atomic operation in computer science we are using the original definition of the term atomic: non-divisible. An atomic operation is one that cannot (from the point of view of other threads) be divided. An atom in the sense of physics was the basic physical unit that could not be divided, then they managed to divide that which they had labeled as atomic and changed the meaning of the word instead of coming up with a new one.Heuristicshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12213871719586819920noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-83356776023447363752011-12-15T14:18:11.943-08:002011-12-15T14:18:11.943-08:00Right. In natural philosophy up until Darwin, two...Right. In natural philosophy up until Darwin, two populations that didn't interbreed merely because of separation by location would not be called "different species" at all, they would be different populations of one species. When they eventually get around to enough variation between them that they CAN'T interbreed, then that might justify calling them different species, but it is not in virtue of the isolation, it is in virtue of the differences.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-70041576451643606222011-12-15T12:37:02.656-08:002011-12-15T12:37:02.656-08:00Consider 'divine simplicity', which is uni...<i>Consider 'divine simplicity', which is uniquely different from every other kind of simplicity.</i> <br /><br />Actually, no. It is the original meaning of <i>simple.</i> Compare in pharmacy the distinction between "a simple" and "a compound." This, too, follows the original meaning. <br /><br />Of course, in topology a maze is a "simple" curve and a figure-8 is "complex." But this is also derivable from the original meaning. It comes from L. <i>simplus,</i> "single." The adjectival meaning of "not complicated" dates only from the 1550s.TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-23802983458770029112011-12-15T12:26:28.198-08:002011-12-15T12:26:28.198-08:00Tony - "Does it include groups that cannot re...Tony - <i>"Does it include groups that cannot reproduce together only because they are isolated in space? Groups that don't reproduce together for purely reasons of taste (red finches don't naturally select blue finches to mate with) even if they could reproduce if they mated?"</i><br /><br /><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation#Isolation_mechanisms_that_occur_before_breeding_or_copulation_.28pre-zygotic_isolation.29" rel="nofollow">Yes</a>. Of course, given the fact that <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift" rel="nofollow">mutations and variations accumulate in isolated populations over time</a>, this tends to lead to hybridization problems eventually.<br /><br /><i>"They didn't because they chose instead to cut off the philosophic debate on the matter that underlies the two uses of the term."</i><br /><br />Nope.<br /><br /><i>Every single discipline</i> appropriates common words and applies specialized or limited meanings to them. In programming, for example, I can sensibly speak of an "atomic bus queue operation". It's not what you're probably picturing.<br /><br />Theology and philosophy do it, too. Consider 'divine simplicity', which is uniquely different from <i>every</i> other kind of simplicity.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-25960351543548838522011-12-15T12:25:38.370-08:002011-12-15T12:25:38.370-08:00Ray:
As Ernst Mayr put it, "species are group...<i>Ray:<br />As Ernst Mayr put it, "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Species is inherently a group concept.</i> <br /><br />So if Australian aborigines are isolated from Eskimos, they belong to different species?? <br /><br />How does this apply to roses or mushrooms? And if it doesn't, how are we talking about the same thing in each case? In metrology, we know that by defining a measurement system, we define the thing being measured, and using different definitions - even of mechanical measurements like 'coefficient of friction' - we can obtain different results on the same object. <br /><br /><i>We were just talking about the Sorites paradox. ... Imagine two nearby 'heaps' of wheat. We keep adding grains of wheat to the sides nearest each other until there's a 'tail' between them. Are they now the same heap? Do the grains in the middle belong to one heap, or the other, or both?</i> <br /><br />They are one kind of thing: "wheat grains." The "heap" you are talking about has no <i>essential</i> relationship among the grains. They are related only <i>accidentally,</i> by location. In a species, otoh, there is some essence <i>in virtue of which</i> the individuals form a <i>kind</i> of thing.<br /><br /><i>Dude. Seriously? You really intend that as an honest objection to the idea? Even in populations that are all actually alive at the same time, you don't need to breed every individual with every other individual to establish reproductive isolation or the lack thereof. Biological and genetic considerations are sufficient to establish that.</i><br /><br />So let's abandon Mayr's definition. "Biological" or "genetic," which is it to be? Are we also abandoning behavioral and geographic barriers along with temporal barriers to reproduction? <br /><br />Of course, a reductio is not a serious objection to anything except the weakness of the original definition - to which you have now added unspecified "considerations." In the hard sciences and in engineering, a definition must be "operational." That is, you must be able to specify the operations to be performed that will result in the measurement (or classification). How, for example, is Mayr's definition to be applied to distinguish different contemporary "species" of trilobites or tyrannosaurs? <br /><br /><i>In its domain of applicability - sexually-reproducing organisms - it's quite accurate and useful.</i> <br /><br />Useful, indeed; but to call it accurate is to beg the question. Accuracy can only be judged by comparison to a standard, and the definition is supposed to <i>be</i> the standard. It strikes me as the modern definition of "atoms," which is also useful. But the entities defined are not actually "atoms."<br />+ + +<br /><br />Perhaps we ought to encourage the term "biospecies" to emphasize it scope limitations. It may well be that roses and mushrooms don't have "species" in the same sense as higher animalsTheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-56322498255079124702011-12-15T11:50:46.927-08:002011-12-15T11:50:46.927-08:00RAY: As Ernst Mayr put it, "species are grou...RAY: <i>As Ernst Mayr put it, "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Species is inherently a group concept.</i> <br /><br />If that's what they mean by the term, and they stick to that without equivocation, it might be useful. But such a meaning for "species" is problematic when they try to discuss the issues with others, because the term "species" had a meaning before and apart from such a limited definition. Such a definition, then, becomes a means of mis-communicating. <br /><br />By the way, what does "reproductively isolated from other such groups" mean? Does it include groups that cannot reproduce together only because they are isolated in space? Groups that don't reproduce together for purely reasons of taste (red finches don't naturally select blue finches to mate with) even if they could reproduce if they mated? <br /><br /><i>We were just talking about the Sorites paradox. A 'heap' is inherently a group concept, too. If the species concept is incoherent, then the idea of a heap must also be incoherent for the exact same reason. Is that your contention?</i> <br /><br />No, the problem is the hidden assumption that this is the ONLY KIND of collecting that occurs, the heap kind: A clump of molecules is a heap even if they happen to be a part of a human being. <br /><br /><i> I actually agree that the 'biological species concept' (depending on reproductive isolation) is indeed incomplete, and doesn't apply to asexual species, among others. That being said, in its domain of applicability - sexually-reproducing organisms - it's quite accurate and useful. </i> <br /><br />It can be useful. But since it is also an unnecessarily distinct way of using the word compared to the way it was used - before Darwinism - from the time of Plato at least, it is a poor use of nomenclature. Biologists should have come up with their own word that means what you said instead of borrowing another word that had its own (different) meaning. They didn't because they chose instead to cut off the philosophic debate on the matter that underlies the two uses of the term.Tonynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-18582407728666617192011-12-15T11:35:27.687-08:002011-12-15T11:35:27.687-08:00there are rules of language for the sake of effect...<i>there are rules of language for the sake of effective communication, but we like to add or modify rules for the sake of amusement — everything from metaphors to outright puns.</i><br /><br />That's why we can "game the system."<br /><br />I'd like to suggest that the problem some folks have with fuzzy sets is that what makes a game "game" is largely in the mind of the player. You <i>can</i> "game the system."TheOFloinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14756711106266484327noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-45725765829537169182011-12-15T11:18:04.201-08:002011-12-15T11:18:04.201-08:00Bobcat:
What Suits is claiming is that the reaso...Bobcat:<br /><br /><i> What Suits is claiming is that the reason we have for following the rules of a game is that if we didn't follow such rules, we wouldn't even be playing the game in the first place. </i> <br /><br />How does that differ from any constitutive rule-governed human activity? Being a physician is has constitutive rules (e.g. being knowledgeable, being compassionate, making decisions in the best interests of your patients, maintaining accreditation, etc.) such that not following those rules would mean that you just aren’t practicing medicine. In addition, doing mathematics has various constitutive rules whereby not following them (e.g. 1 + 1 = 3) means that you just aren’t doing mathematics at all.<br /><br />Again, the task is to determine the necessary and sufficient conditions whereby an activity is a game, and <i>not anything else</i>. Suits’ definition just seems too broad.<br /><br /><i> But I encourage you to read the original article. If you need a copy, let me know.</i><br /><br />I can’t find the article anywhere. Can you post it somewhere?dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-82717987060006420422011-12-15T09:43:22.893-08:002011-12-15T09:43:22.893-08:00Recall this end-bit of the definition:
"...w...Recall this end-bit of the definition:<br /><br />"...where the sole reason for accepting such limitation is to make possible such activity."<br /><br />Mr. Green is wrong when he says this equates to following the rules for the sake of having fun. We have to distinguish between a person's reason for playing a game and a person's reason for following the rules of a game. There are numerous reasons people can have for playing a game. What Suits is claiming is that the reason we have for following the rules of a game is that if we didn't follow such rules, we wouldn't even be playing the game in the first place. <br /><br />But I encourage you to read the original article. If you need a copy, let me know.Bobcathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04797941051438316014noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-54812877160697837272011-12-15T08:51:57.265-08:002011-12-15T08:51:57.265-08:00Mr Green:
No, he means that you follow the rules...Mr Green:<br /><br /><i> No, he means that you follow the rules of a game for the sake of the rules themselves, whereas you follow the rules at work for the sake of not getting fired. In other words, games are rules that you follow just for fun. </i><br /><br />There is a difference between following rules “for the sake of the rules themselves”, and following rules for the sake of having fun. The bottom line is that nobody plays a game just to follow the rules. That would be pointless. People play games for a number of reasons, such as for a challenge, for the thrill of victory, for learning to cope with defeat, for learning how to be competitive, for physical fitness, for mental agility, for earning approval from others, for material gain, and so on. Again, nobody plays a game just to follow rules and for <i>no other reason</i>.<br /><br /><i>Now you can still come up with examples that don't fit the definition exactly, but that's because human beings like playing games with words. (That is, there are rules of language for the sake of effective communication, but we like to add or modify rules for the sake of amusement — everything from metaphors to outright puns.) But of course we have to be careful not to confuse ambiguity or flexibility of language with things themselves.</i><br /><br />But that is precisely the issue. The problem is not where there are clear-cut examples and exemplars of a concept, but where there is a grey area and fuzzy border, i.e. “examples that don’t fit the definition exactly”. And this becomes problematic for philosophical arguments that demand precision and demarcation in their conceptual underpinning. Whether this lack of precision is epistemological or ontological, the bottom line is that our concepts are inadequate, and thus the inferences that we make on the basis of those concepts are equally inadequate.dgullernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-42660282291525638752011-12-15T08:38:31.050-08:002011-12-15T08:38:31.050-08:00Mr. Green - if a "space shuttle" can be ...Mr. Green - if a "space shuttle" can be an Aristotelean substance, then why not a robot?Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-50836731825440224862011-12-15T08:37:01.610-08:002011-12-15T08:37:01.610-08:00Anon@December 14, 2011 1:26 PM -
Your choice. Mye...Anon@December 14, 2011 1:26 PM -<br /><br />Your choice. Myers does, in fact, post science on occasion, and this was an example.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8954608646904080796.post-14744972919298962092011-12-15T08:35:51.511-08:002011-12-15T08:35:51.511-08:00TheOFloinn - But it does so nicely illustrate the ...TheOFloinn - <i>But it does so nicely illustrate the incoherence of the biological definition of "species."</i><br /><br />As Ernst Mayr put it, "species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups". Species is inherently a group concept.<br /><br />We were just talking about the Sorites paradox. A 'heap' is inherently a group concept, too. <i>If</i> the species concept is incoherent, <i>then</i> the idea of a heap must also be incoherent for the exact same reason. Is that your contention?<br /><br />Imagine two nearby 'heaps' of wheat. We keep adding grains of wheat to the sides nearest each other until there's a 'tail' between them. Are they now the same heap? Do the grains in the middle belong to one heap, or the other, or both?<br /><br /><i>Of course, I cannot interbreed with my great-grandmother's sister-in-law for the excellent reason that she is dead; but this does not make her a different species from me.</i><br /><br />Dude. Seriously? You really intend that as an honest objection to the idea? Even in populations that are all actually alive at the same time, you don't need to breed every individual with every other individual to establish reproductive isolation or the lack thereof. Biological and genetic considerations are sufficient to establish that.<br /><br /><i>"You get a horse or a zebra depending "simply" on the timing with which a particular gene activates."</i><br /><br />Well, <i>and</i> <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebroid#Genetics" rel="nofollow">a few chromosome fusion events.</a><br /><br />I actually agree that the 'biological species concept' (depending on reproductive isolation) is indeed incomplete, and doesn't apply to asexual species, among others. That being said, in its domain of applicability - sexually-reproducing organisms - it's quite accurate and useful.Ray Ingleshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16290483120987779339noreply@blogger.com