 |
Web Hosting by Netfirms | Free Domain Names by Netfirms |
|
|
|
Paper 1: Abstract: This was the first of three papers I wrote for a Philosophy of Mind class in my senior year of college. It's a reply to a journal article written by Frank Jackson called "What Mary Didn't Know". Frank Jackson argues that physicalism represents an inadequate account of the mind. The basis for his argument is a rather wacky thought experiment in which a woman, named Mary, is kept in a colorless environment from birth and is taught "completed physics, chemistry, and neurophysiology, and all there is to know about the causal and relational facts consequent upon all this, including of course functional roles." (quoted from the article) When she finally escapes and sees colors for the first time she learns something...even though she already knew the entire physical story. While in principle I agree with Jackson I argue that his argument ultimately fails because there is no way to be sure that the premises of his argument are true. This thought experiment could never be performed in real life. I also claim that the role that subjectivity plays in this question makes it nearly impossible to neatly determine, in an objective way, whether Mary really learns something from her subjective experience of red.
Paper 2: Abstract: In this paper, which I wrote at the last minute, as usual, is about something called 'the intentional strategy'. This is a method of prediction that can be applied to what are called 'intentional systems'. OK, that's a circular definition, you caught me. It's really about what some have called folk psychology, the non-strictly-scientific understanding garnered from experience about human behavior and beliefs. Daniel Dennet claims that a certain stance toward the nature of human behavior allows us to predict that behavior. The stance consists of describing humans as 'intentional systems' the behavior of which is most efficiently described and explained by a ascribing beliefs to them (as opposed to thinking of them as strictly physical systems whose behavior can be described and explained in wholly physical terms). Dennet is careful not to say that beliefs are therefore 'real' objects...a point of view I was not willing to share although I fail to really justify my position that beliefs are real things. I pretty much just say that they must be real because we believe they are real. While this sounds tenable it's not philosophically responsible.
Paper 3: Abstract: My final work of art, here presented just as unedited as the other two, is in my mind a much more effective piece of philosophy than the second. Thomas Nagel takes the position that there is no such thing as a singular mind, that is, the concept of a unitary consciousness is useless as a scientific tool for understanding the mind. He takes as evidence experiments performed with people whose corpus callosum has been severed. (The corpus callosum is the thick bundle of nerves that joins the two hemispheres of the brain). I take the same evidence and form the believable opinion that these people still have just one mind and not two or some ambiguous number of minds. Because my opinion (though baseless) is just as believable as Nagel's I claim that his opinion has just as little reason to be believed as mine. And if that made sense to you, then this paper might be enjoyable reading.
Paper 1: Abstract: This is my senior thesis paper. I wrote this without any kind of faculty oversight so it's kind of rambly. Actually, it's been so long since I worked on it and so long since I've read it (and I don't want to read it right now) that I can't really write a very good description of what it's about. Let me give it a shot. Basically I describe Rudolf Otto's concept of "The Holy" as best as I'm able (honestly, I didn't finish reading the book but based my summary on the first five chapters). Then I write a whole bunch about Aldous Huxley's book The Perennial Philosophy in which he describes elements of mysticism that seem to be common to nearly all of the worlds religions. Then I write a little about an article on subjectivity and relate it to the previous discussion
This is a long one, so get comfy!
Paper 2: Abstract: This is a paper about the question of Evil in the Confessions of St. Augustine. If I wrote much to decribe the paper, you wouldn't have to read it. It's that short. St. Augustine doesn't deserve to have so little written about his work, I'm still reading the Confessions and there's plenty in there to ponder and write about. I have some thoughts I want to get down that were inspired by this book but I haven't written anything but a few notes so far. I'll be posting that paper as soon as I write it.
Paper 1: Abstract: This is what I wrote after I had just finished reading Cat's Cradle by Kurt Vonnegut. I haven't finished writing it yet so I'm still not sure what it's about. Have fun reading it!
Paper 2: Abstract: Review and analysis of Miracles by C.S. Lewis. I am taking the book chapter by chapter and investigating whether the metaphysical claims he makes are adequately supported to justify his philosophical conclusions.
Here is a little page relating some of my interesting experiences as a 'technical support representative". Or actuall, my title could also be rendered as "technical support engineer. Which is just silly, don't you think? Might as well call car assembly line workers "automobile fabrication engineers". Or garbage collectors "waste removal engineers". A fancy name a fancy job does not make. Anyway, if it sounds interesting,
Well, of course there had to be a page here somewhere with speculations about the meaning of life. Nothing too rigorous or scholarly. Actually, it's pretty amateurish and depressing. So far. It's not really done yet. But you can
Here is a collection of paragraphs that may or may not have anything to do with one another. It's sort of a mish mash right now as I work out what I want to say here. It's all about natural resources and the way we use energy. It might be interesting if someday I have the motivation to finish it.