Find counter arguments by entering NameVs… or …VsName.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author Vs Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Davidson, D. | Williams, M. Vs Davidson, D. | Rorty VI 230 Skepticism/Davidson: since he has already shown that most of our beliefs must be true, the skeptic is already beaten. Belief/M. WilliamsVsDavidson: did not really show that most of our beliefs have to be true. M. WilliamsVsDavidson: derives both coherence and correspondence theory from the principle of indulgence. Principle of indulgence: notion of unproblematic access to certain causal relationships. Williams: the game is over before it has begun! VI 231 M. WilliamsVsDavidson : if we do not already have a way to associate coherence with truth, we cannot possibly know that our beliefs are interpretable in Davidson's sense! Williams quotes here Peter KleinVsDavidson: "he can only show that if there are beliefs they are on the whole true". Rorty: but Klein continues: "For this we would have to know that outside our bodies there are events that are in causal interaction with states of ourselves". Davidson/Rorty: he would surely agree with the first part, and to the second that (if there are any beliefs at all) he does not need to rack his brains! VI 232 Skepticism: Mr Williams doubts whether we have any beliefs at all. But this kind of skepticism is not Descartes' or Stroud's! Beliefs/M. WilliamsVsDavidson: (Davidson: most beliefs are true): does not solve the problem of skepticism, but shifts it to the problem of the inscrutability of reference. Brains in a vat: For example, the external interpreter of the brains in the vat has no reason to believe that his idea of what the brain in the vat is talking about corresponds to "the self-understanding" of the brain in the vat! VI 233 DavidsonVsWilliams: would ask back: "Why do you think that we (as brains in a vat) did not think that our utterances related to events in the computer? The "self-understanding" is only a variation of the "epistemic situation". (According to Davidson, both are forms of the "schema" in the sense of dualism schema/content). |
Rorty I Richard Rorty Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature, Princeton/NJ 1979 German Edition: Der Spiegel der Natur Frankfurt 1997 Rorty II Richard Rorty Philosophie & die Zukunft Frankfurt 2000 Rorty II (b) Richard Rorty "Habermas, Derrida and the Functions of Philosophy", in: R. Rorty, Truth and Progress. Philosophical Papers III, Cambridge/MA 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (c) Richard Rorty Analytic and Conversational Philosophy Conference fee "Philosophy and the other hgumanities", Stanford Humanities Center 1998 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (d) Richard Rorty Justice as a Larger Loyalty, in: Ronald Bontekoe/Marietta Stepanians (eds.) Justice and Democracy. Cross-cultural Perspectives, University of Hawaii 1997 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (e) Richard Rorty Spinoza, Pragmatismus und die Liebe zur Weisheit, Revised Spinoza Lecture April 1997, University of Amsterdam In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (f) Richard Rorty "Sein, das verstanden werden kann, ist Sprache", keynote lecture for Gadamer’ s 100th birthday, University of Heidelberg In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty II (g) Richard Rorty "Wild Orchids and Trotzky", in: Wild Orchids and Trotzky: Messages form American Universities ed. Mark Edmundson, New York 1993 In Philosophie & die Zukunft, Frankfurt/M. 2000 Rorty III Richard Rorty Contingency, Irony, and solidarity, Chambridge/MA 1989 German Edition: Kontingenz, Ironie und Solidarität Frankfurt 1992 Rorty IV (a) Richard Rorty "is Philosophy a Natural Kind?", in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 46-62 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (b) Richard Rorty "Non-Reductive Physicalism" in: R. Rorty, Objectivity, Relativism, and Truth. Philosophical Papers Vol. I, Cambridge/Ma 1991, pp. 113-125 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (c) Richard Rorty "Heidegger, Kundera and Dickens" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 66-82 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty IV (d) Richard Rorty "Deconstruction and Circumvention" in: R. Rorty, Essays on Heidegger and Others. Philosophical Papers Vol. 2, Cambridge/MA 1991, pp. 85-106 In Eine Kultur ohne Zentrum, Stuttgart 1993 Rorty V (a) R. Rorty "Solidarity of Objectivity", Howison Lecture, University of California, Berkeley, January 1983 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1998 Rorty V (b) Richard Rorty "Freud and Moral Reflection", Edith Weigert Lecture, Forum on Psychiatry and the Humanities, Washington School of Psychiatry, Oct. 19th 1984 In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty V (c) Richard Rorty The Priority of Democracy to Philosophy, in: John P. Reeder & Gene Outka (eds.), Prospects for a Common Morality. Princeton University Press. pp. 254-278 (1992) In Solidarität oder Objektivität?, Stuttgart 1988 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 |
| Descartes, R. | Burge Vs Descartes, R. | Frank I 699 Reliability theoryVsSkepticism/Burge: some want to block the skepticism by denying seclusion principles. BurgeVsDescartes: I think we can be sure that we are not being deceived by any deus malignus. We derive this knowledge from our perception knowledge. This is not transcendental, as some authors believe. BurgeVsDescartes: the second stage judgment (reflective) simply inherits the content of the first-stage thought. E.g. "Water is a liquid": 1) you need the ability to think the empirical thought of the first stage, and 2) to attribute it to yourself at the same time. The knowledge of the content of the thoughts does not require an upstream separate examination of the conditions, just like the knowledge of the contents of perception does not require this. Fra I 700 One simply knows the thought by thinking it. We have no criterion, no phenomenon and no empiricism. I 705 BurgeVsDescartes: it is wrong to conceive one’s own thoughts as objects and to attribute a special faculty of infallibility to oneself. Either you introduce the new entity of an ability or special objects as new entities. OckhamVs. E.g. propositions which can only be thought if they have been fully understood, or ideas whose esse is their percipi. That would be objects about which no mistakes could be made, like items that could be seen at once from all sides. I 708 BurgeVsDescartes: main error: the difference between a-priori knowledge and authoritative self blurring knowledge of the first person. One has clearly no authority to know whether one of one’s own thoughts can be individuated or to explicated in a certain way. But one does not need this authority to know that one is thinking them. E.g. I can know that I have arthritis, and know that I think that without having clear criteria for arthritis. It is a truism that you have to understand what you think well enough to think of it. But this does not mean that such an understanding brings an ability to explication or substitution with it, nor that such an understanding is immune to errors. So you can know what your own thoughts are, even if you only understand them partially. DavidsonVs: that undermines the authority of the first person. BurgeVsDavidson: that is not necessary if a distinction is made between understanding and the ability to explicate. I 709 Explication: requires a higher degree of objectification: a conceptual mastery of the conditions that are the basis of your own thoughts and a conceptual mastery of the rules that you follow. Tyler Burge (1988a): IndiviDualism and Self-Knowledge, in: The Journal of Philosophy 85 (1988), 649-663 |
Burge I T. Burge Origins of Objectivity Oxford 2010 Burge II Tyler Burge "Two Kinds of Consciousness" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Descartes, R. | Ryle Vs Descartes, R. | Danto I 176 Idea / Descartes: Enforcement of a kind of act on the basis of an idea. Even if I were a stone now, then I would just be a thinking stone; ens cogitans. (RyleVs). Descartes thought = action - Thinking stone possible: ens cogitans Ryle I 67ff RyleVsDescartes: the semi-metaphorical idea seems to be based on the deeper philosophical assumption that there are two different kinds of existence (wrong!). I 10 Descartes: Thesis: ~there is a polar opposition between mind and matter in a common field, which is called "space". I 11 Privileged access: the reports of a psyche about its own affairs have a certainty to them that reports about the physical world cannot have. Sensation may be mistaken or confused, consciousness and introspection are not. Flor I 258 RyleVsDescartes: myth of the mind in the machine: Descartes: Dualism: 1) The body is in space and time, the mind is only in time 2) The body can be described mechanically the mind cannot. 3) The body is publicly observable, the mind is private. 4) Through introspection and evidence of their consciousness a person has has direct knowledge, (privileged access), other minds can never be accessible. 5) The mind is seen as the sum of internal processes and states, which in turn can cause physical processes or activities and states. Flor I 259 RyleVsDescartes: Problem: the suspected link between the "mind machine" and the physical machine: the relations must be understood as either a mechanical or quasi mechanical. A third possibility is ruled out. But whichever opinion we follow: we only name the problem, but we don't solve it; because the question remains as to how it should be possible at all that the two models of explanation are mutually exclusive: on mechanical processes cannot be impacted by quasi mechanical ones and vice versa! |
Ryle I G. Ryle The Concept of Mind, Chicago 1949 German Edition: Der Begriff des Geistes Stuttgart 1969 Danto I A. C. Danto Connections to the World - The Basic Concepts of Philosophy, New York 1989 German Edition: Wege zur Welt München 1999 Danto III Arthur C. Danto Nietzsche as Philosopher: An Original Study, New York 1965 German Edition: Nietzsche als Philosoph München 1998 Danto VII A. C. Danto The Philosophical Disenfranchisement of Art (Columbia Classics in Philosophy) New York 2005 Flor I Jan Riis Flor "Gilbert Ryle: Bewusstseinsphilosophie" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 Flor II Jan Riis Flor "Karl Raimund Popper: Kritischer Rationalismus" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A.Hügli/P.Lübcke Reinbek 1993 Flor III J.R. Flor "Bertrand Russell: Politisches Engagement und logische Analyse" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P.Lübcke (Hg) Reinbek 1993 Flor IV Jan Riis Flor "Thomas S. Kuhn. Entwicklung durch Revolution" In Philosophie im 20. Jahrhundert, A. Hügli/P. Lübcke Reinbek 1993 |
| Dualism | McGinn Vs Dualism | McGinnVsDualism: the problem is that he goes too far in the interpretation of data. It responds to the appearances, by declaring that the mind is virtually independent of the brain. 1 The zombie problem 2 The Haunted problem II 38 McGinnVsDualism: seperates the mind to radically from the brain. So as if the mind could go about its business without assistance of the brain machine . He s right that the brain, just as we presently understand it, can not explain the mind - he is wrong when he concludes that no brain property can do this. II 42 Mind / brain / McGinn: the spirit is manifest in a causal relation to the brain, as difficult as this may be to believe. Why should that be so, if the existence of consciousness depends on God (VsDescartes). Theism / McGinn: the theistic Dualism exaggerates the gap between mind and brain. II 106 Def Hyper Dualism / McGinn: assumed in the Big Bang there were two universes, a material and a parallel, which consisted only of consciousness. II 108 - II 110 McGinnVs Hyper Dualism: Where is the fatal error? In the concept of causality. The mental universe is said to contain no matter and yet events and circumstances in this universe make things happen in the other universe. Thus, it is assumed that disembodied consciousness be able to influence the course of events. This raises two major questions: 1st How can a disembodied consciousness be the cause of something? 2nd How can the physical sequence of events be disturbed by anything in the material universe, which is going on in the other universe? |
McGinn I Colin McGinn Problems in Philosophy. The Limits of Inquiry, Cambridge/MA 1993 German Edition: Die Grenzen vernünftigen Fragens Stuttgart 1996 McGinn II C. McGinn The Mysteriouy Flame. Conscious Minds in a Material World, New York 1999 German Edition: Wie kommt der Geist in die Materie? München 2001 |
| Dualism | Ryle Vs Dualism | Pauen I 82 Ryle/Pauen: it seems as if Ryle wanted to deny the existence of mental states, but this is a misunderstanding. He simply denies an autonomous mental substance. I 84 RyleVsDualism: Category Error: falsely assumes that we can speak of mental processes in the same context as of physical processes. As if mind and brain differed like Library and Lecture Hall. Therefore, it is pointless to speak of "concurrent" mental and physical events. Ryle I 226 ff Dualism/RyleVsDualism/Ryle: life is not a double series of events that take place in two different kinds of matters. It's only a chain of events of various genres whose differences are mainly in that logically different types of statements of law and law-like statements are applicable to them. I 228 We are not looking into a secret chamber. In reality, the problem is not of that kind. It is is rather about the methodological question of how we prove law-like statements about the silent demeanor of people and apply them. E.g. I find out that someone is a true master of chess by watching him. That a student is lazy by watching him for a longer while. The question is not the frame question: "How do I discover that we have a soul?", but: a whole series of special questions of the form: how do I discover that I am more selfless than you, that I do poorly in dividing, but better at solving differential equations? That you are suffering from anxiety or easily overlook certain kinds of facts? Apart from such purely dispositional questions, there is the whole range of execution and event questions of the form: how do I find out that I got the joke, but you did not? That your deed required more courage than mine? I 229 Questions of this kind are not a mystery! I 230 In short, it is part of the meaning of "he understands" that he could have done this and that and that he would have done it... and the test is a set of tasks. With a single success we would not entirely have been satisfied, but we were with twenty. (Whether a boy can divide). Wittgenstein VII 147 Philosophy/Nonsense/Logical Grammar/Tetens: the thesis that philosophy is based on a misunderstanding of the "logical grammar" of language, can neither be found in Carnap nor in the Tractatus, but in Ryle in his criticism RyleVsDualismus, VsDescartes (Ryle 1969). |
Ryle I G. Ryle The Concept of Mind, Chicago 1949 German Edition: Der Begriff des Geistes Stuttgart 1969 Pauen I M. Pauen Grundprobleme der Philosophie des Geistes Frankfurt 2001 W II L. Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989 W III L. Wittgenstein The Blue and Brown Books (BB), Oxford 1958 German Edition: Das Blaue Buch - Eine Philosophische Betrachtung Frankfurt 1984 W IV L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921. German Edition: Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960 |
| Internalism | Burge Vs Internalism | I 687 Deception/Descartes/Burge: Descartes points out a causal gap between world and effects; different external causes can trigger the same effects (all authors pro). Individualism: therefore our thoughts about the world are wrong Anti-indiviDualism (= externalism)/Burge: but we know what thoughts we have, even if they are wrong (even on twin earth) Anti-indiviDualism Thesis: in counterfactual situations we have other thoughts than in the current situation (Twin Earth) VsInternalism: confuses truth conditions with individuation conditions: the I conditions (indexical) change, however, on Twin Earth, because the thoughts are different. But you can have thoughts without knowing the individuation conditions. Frank I 688 BurgeVsInternalism/Individualism: incorrect evolution of the Cartesian argument: confusion of truth conditions with individuation conditions. 1) Descartes raises the question of whether our thoughts in counterfactual situations are true: they are not. Important argument: It is assumed that the thoughts are identical to the corresponding ones from the original situation! That means the individuation conditions remain constant, the truth conditions change. Twin Earth/BurgeVs: in fact the reverse is true: the individuation conditions change. We know what thoughts we have in the current situation and can imagine that they are wrong. We would also know in a counterfactual situation, what thoughts we would have in this situation. But in the current situation we have no knowledge of the thoughts we would have in counterfactual situations. Hence Cartesianism cannot support internalism. Tyler Burge (1988a): IndiviDualism and Self-Knowledge, in: The Journal of Philosophy 85 (1988), 649-663 |
Burge I T. Burge Origins of Objectivity Oxford 2010 Burge II Tyler Burge "Two Kinds of Consciousness" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Kant | Brandom Vs Kant | I 852 Kant: dualistic character of his distinction of the conceptual and non-conceptual (BrandomVs). I 853 Kant: 1) Judgments are the basic form of consciousness. 2) Recognition and action are determined by normative assessments in conscious beings as opposed to non-conscious beings. 3) Dualism spontaneity and receptivity. I 855 Brandom: For Kant, concepts relate to views 1) like shape to matter - 2) like the general to the specific - 3) like the work of spontaneity or intellectual activity to that of receptivity Brandom: these are real differences, but they are independent and orthogonal to one another. None of the above differences is understood between the conceptual and something non-conceptual in the judgment. That which a judgment expresses, its content, is conceptual through and through. So Kant threw together the second and the third point, by systematically not distinguishing between representations of the individual and individual representations. (see BrandomVsKripke) II 13 Kant and Descartes: Mind primary, language secondary - BrandomVsKant and Descartes. II 123 Law/action/BrandomVsKant: Proposal to replace "image of a law" with "recognition of a determination". |
Bra I R. Brandom Making it exlicit. Reasoning, Representing, and Discursive Commitment, Cambridge/MA 1994 German Edition: Expressive Vernunft Frankfurt 2000 Bra II R. Brandom Articulating reasons. An Introduction to Inferentialism, Cambridge/MA 2001 German Edition: Begründen und Begreifen Frankfurt 2001 |
| Kripke, S. A. | Anscombe Vs Kripke, S. A. | Frank I 84 I/Descartes: not a kind of body. I could assume that I don’t have a body. I/Augustine: "the mind knows of itself, that it is thinking." "It knows its own substance." Kripke/Anscombe: K. tried to rehabilitate Descartes’ argument for his Dualism. AnscombeVsKripke: he neglects his first person character by making it an argument for the non-identity of Descartes with his own body. I 85 According to this, Descartes would have had to doubt the existence of Descartes as a human being, and in any case the existence of this figure in the world of his time, of this Frenchman, christened René... Descartes/AnscombeVsKripke: "I am not Descartes" was for him like "I’m not a body!" Forcing the argument into the third person perspective by replacing "I" with "Descartes" means to neglect this. Descartes never thought, "Descartes is not Descartes" (which according to Anscombe is ascribed to him by Kripke). I 85/86 AnscombeVsKripke: this discussion is not about the usual reflexive pronoun, but about a strange reflexive which must be explained from the standpoint of the "I". Grammarians call it the "indirect reflexive". (In Greek it is a separate form.) E.g. "When John Smith spoke of James Robinson, he spoke of his brother, but he did not know that." So it is conceivable that someone does not know that the object of which he speaks is himself. Now, if "I" is compatible with ignorance, the reflexive pronoun cannot be used as usual. Now one may ask: was the person of which Smith intended to speak not Smith? Was the person not himself?. Answer: not in the relevant sense! Unless the reflexive pronoun is itself a sufficient proof of reference. And the usual reflexive pronoun cannot do that. I 96 I/Self/Logic/Anscombe: here, the "manner of givenness" is unimportant. Fra I 97 The logician understands that "I" in my mouth is just another name for "E.A.". His rule: if x makes assertions with "I" as the subject, then they are true iff the predicates of x are true. AnscombeVsLogic/AnscombeVsKripke: for this reason he makes the transition from "I" to "Descartes". But this is too superficial: If one is a speaker who says "I", then it is impossible to find out what it is that says "I". E.g. one does not look to see from which apparatus the noise comes. Thus, we have to compel our logician to assume a "guaranteed" reference of "I". Fra I 98 Problem: with a guaranteed reference there is no longer any difference between "I" and "A". |
Anscombe I G.E. M. Anscombe "The First Person", in: G. E. M. Anscombe The Collected Philosophical Papers, Vol. II: "Metaphysics and the Philosophy of Mind", Oxford 1981, pp. 21-36 In Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins, Manfred Frank Frankfurt/M. 1994 Fra I M. Frank (Hrsg.) Analytische Theorien des Selbstbewusstseins Frankfurt 1994 |
| Stroud, B. | Williams, M. Vs Stroud, B. | Rorty VI 126 Skepticism/Rorty: "Experience has priority over world knowledge". VI 227 Michael Williams: the only reason for this view is that otherwise there would be no way to evaluate our world knowledge. This is an unvarnished metaphysical determination. Stroud: "It must be shown how it is possible for us to know things about the world if our sensory experience is compatible with our dreaming. M. WilliamsVsStroud: You only have to agree to this if you already have a foundation approach. You have to acknowledge that Descartes' so-called "natural order of things" really exists, and with it a context-free epistemic status. RortyVsWilliams: so far it is good, but he did not succeed, as he claims, in presenting a new "correct theoretical diagnosis". Should he really make a difference between the outcome of his foundation view and all other approaches? (Dualism subject/object, "spectator theory", striving for certainty, experience as veil, etc.) VI 228 Williams did not reckon with the most radical critique of this dualism, Davidson: the critique of the distinction schema/content. He misunderstands Davidson when he thinks he is trying to answer the sceptic directly. (Impossible task). VI 234/235 Objectivity/M. Williams/Rorty: sometimes expresses himself ambiguously (danger: to accept "being like this" of the world). But it only seems to mean that the "truthfulness of an objective statement is something other than what we believe to be true or our justified belief that it is true. For a distinction between "to be justified" and "to be true" as such is not sufficient to reinstate the Dualism schema/content. Independence/M. Williams: the idea that "our experience could be exactly as it is, and yet it would be possible that all our beliefs about the world are wrong." RortyVsWilliams: there are two meanings of "independent": those who confuse them draw the wrong conclusion from "everyone" to "all". It is true that every single belief can be wrong, but it does not follow that all beliefs can be wrong. |
Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 |
| Various Authors | Kanitscheider Vs Various Authors | Kanitscheider I 433 Infinity/Material Existence/Physics: some models require physical infinity: the hyperbolic world of general relativity theory (AR), the steady astate theory (SST). Infinity/Mathematics/Physics: Gauss: is skeptical about actual infinite quantities. LucretiusVsArchimedes: is infinity mere possibility of an object to traverse new space-time points? (remains a discussion until today). Bolzano: the objective existence of infinite sets cannot fail due to the impossibility of imagining every single object. I 434 NewtonVsDescartes: not "indefinite" but actual infinite space! KantVsNewton: the infinite is unimaginable! NewtonVsKant: not imaginable, but conceptually comprehensible! Riemann: Differentiation infinite/unlimited (new!). Solution for the problem of the "beyond space". Three-ball (S³) conceptually analytically easy to handle. I 435 Sets/infinity: here the sentence: "The whole is larger than the parts" is no longer applicable. (But extensional determination is also not necessary, intensional is enough). Space: Question: Can an open infinite space contain more than Aleph 0 objects of finite size? Solution: "densest packing" of spatially convex cells: this set cannot be larger than countable. Thus no a priori obstacle that the number of galaxies in an unlimited Riemann space of non-ending volume is the smallest transfinite cardinal number. II 102 Measurement/Consciousness/Observer/Quantum Mechanics/QM: Psychological Interpretation: Fritz London and Edmund Bauer, 1939 >New Age Movement. II 103 Thesis: the observer constitutes the new physical objectivity through his consciousness, namely the rotation of the vector in the Hilbert space. 1. KanitscheiderVsBauer: Problem: then there is no definite single state of matter without the intervention of a psyche. 2. KanitscheiderVsBauer: on the one hand consciousness is included in the quantum-mechanical laws, on the other hand it should possess special properties within the observer, namely those which transfer the combined system of object, apparatus and observer without external impulse from the hybrid superposition state into the single state in which the partial elements are decoupled. 3. KanitscheiderVsBauer: strange that the Schrödinger equation, the most fundamental law of quantum mechanics, should not be applicable to consciousness. 4. KanitscheiderVsBauer: also doubt whether the consciousness can really be in the superposition of different completely equal soul states. (Bauer had adopted his thesis from Erich Becher's interactionalistic body soul Dualism II 104). I 423 Space Curvature/Empirical Measurement/Schwarzschild/Kanitscheider: Schwarzschild: Distortion of the triangle formed by the Earth's orbit parallax. Although the curvature factors are not known, one can conclude that if the space is hyperbolic (K < 0), the parallax of very distant stars must be positive. I 424 If you now observe stars with a vanishing parallax, the measurement accuracy provides an upper limit for the value of negative curvature. If the space is spherical - the parallax must be negative. Schwarzschild: in the hyperbolic case, the radius of curvature should be at least 64 light years, in the elliptical at least 1600 light-years. KanitscheiderVsSchwarzschild: such theory-independent experiments are today rightly regarded as hopeless. I 296 Time Travels/Kanitscheider: VsTime Machine/VsWells: H.G. Wells makes the mistake that he lets the traveler ascend and descend the world line of the earth on the same earthly space point. Exactly this leads to the conceptual impossibility of forward and backward movement in time. Time Travel/General Relativity Theory/Kanitscheider: this changes when matter comes into play. |
Kanitsch I B. Kanitscheider Kosmologie Stuttgart 1991 Kanitsch II B. Kanitscheider Im Innern der Natur Darmstadt 1996 |
| Williams, M. | Davidson Vs Williams, M. | Rorty VI 232 Scepticism: M. Williams has doubts whether we have beliefs at all. But this kind of skepticism is not that of Descartes or Stroud!. Beliefs/M. WilliamsVsDavidson: (Davidson: most beliefs are true): does not solve the problem of skepticism, but shifts it to the problem of the inscrutability of reference. Brains in a vat/BIV: E.g. the external interpreter of the brains in the tank has no reason to believe that his idea of what the brain talks about in a vat corresponds to "the self-understanding" of the brain in the tank!. VI 233 DavdisonVsWilliams: would ask back: "Why do you think that we (as brains in the tank) do not think that our comments relate to events in the computer? The "Self-understanding" is only a variant of the "epistemic situation" (Both are forms of "scheme", according to Davidson, in the sense of the dualism scheme/content). Brains in a vat/BIV/M. Williams: We would probably not relate our beliefs to events in the computer. DavidsonVsWilliams: would retort: Williams only believes that, because he has embarked on the idea that we can know the contents of our intentional states without even knowing their causes. That would be exactly the foundation idea that Williams criticized!. |
Davidson I D. Davidson Der Mythos des Subjektiven Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (a) Donald Davidson "Tho Conditions of Thoughts", in: Le Cahier du Collège de Philosophie, Paris 1989, pp. 163-171 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (b) Donald Davidson "What is Present to the Mind?" in: J. Brandl/W. Gombocz (eds) The MInd of Donald Davidson, Amsterdam 1989, pp. 3-18 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (c) Donald Davidson "Meaning, Truth and Evidence", in: R. Barrett/R. Gibson (eds.) Perspectives on Quine, Cambridge/MA 1990, pp. 68-79 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (d) Donald Davidson "Epistemology Externalized", Ms 1989 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson I (e) Donald Davidson "The Myth of the Subjective", in: M. Benedikt/R. Burger (eds.) Bewußtsein, Sprache und die Kunst, Wien 1988, pp. 45-54 In Der Mythos des Subjektiven, Stuttgart 1993 Davidson II Donald Davidson "Reply to Foster" In Truth and Meaning, G. Evans/J. McDowell Oxford 1976 Davidson III D. Davidson Essays on Actions and Events, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Handlung und Ereignis Frankfurt 1990 Davidson IV D. Davidson Inquiries into Truth and Interpretation, Oxford 1984 German Edition: Wahrheit und Interpretation Frankfurt 1990 Davidson V Donald Davidson "Rational Animals", in: D. Davidson, Subjective, Intersubjective, Objective, Oxford 2001, pp. 95-105 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 Rorty VI Richard Rorty Truth and Progress, Cambridge/MA 1998 German Edition: Wahrheit und Fortschritt Frankfurt 2000 |
| |||
| Disputed term/author/ism | Pro/Versus |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dualism | Versus | Dennett I 615ff ~ Mind / Dennett: Descartes, Locke, Godel, Poe, Lucas: An alternative to "mechanical mind": only an intangible spirit - SearleVs: this is dualism. |
Dennett I D. Dennett Darwin’s Dangerous Idea, New York 1995 German Edition: Darwins gefährliches Erbe Hamburg 1997 Dennett II D. Dennett Kinds of Minds, New York 1996 German Edition: Spielarten des Geistes Gütersloh 1999 Dennett III Daniel Dennett "COG: Steps towards consciousness in robots" In Bewusstein, Thomas Metzinger Paderborn/München/Wien/Zürich 1996 Dennett IV Daniel Dennett "Animal Consciousness. What Matters and Why?", in: D. C. Dennett, Brainchildren. Essays on Designing Minds, Cambridge/MA 1998, pp. 337-350 In Der Geist der Tiere, D Perler/M. Wild Frankfurt/M. 2005 |
| |||
The author or concept searched is found in the following 3 theses of the more related field of specialization.
| Disputed term/author/ism | Author |
Entry |
Reference |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dualism | Popper, K. | Vollmer I 108 Dualism / Vollmer: only one still stated hypothesis: the interactionism (formerly Descartes, today Popper, Eccles, v. Ditfurth). Mind and brain are different substances in active interaction. (In both directions). |
Vollmer I G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd. I Die Natur der Erkenntnis. Beiträge zur Evolutionären Erkenntnistheorie Stuttgart 1988 Vollmer II G. Vollmer Was können wir wissen? Bd II Die Erkenntnis der Natur. Beiträge zur modernen Naturphilosophie Stuttgart 1988 |
| Philosophy | Ryle, G. | Tetens Wittgenstein VII 147 Philosophy / nonsense / logical grammar / Tetens: the thesis that philosophy comes from a misunderstanding of the "logical grammar" of the language, is to be found neither Carnap nor in the Tractatus, but at Ryle in his criticism Vs Dualism, VsDescartes (Ryle 1969) . |
W II L. Wittgenstein Wittgenstein’s Lectures 1930-32, from the notes of John King and Desmond Lee, Oxford 1980 German Edition: Vorlesungen 1930-35 Frankfurt 1989 W IV L. Wittgenstein Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus (TLP), 1922, C.K. Ogden (trans.), London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Originally published as “Logisch-Philosophische Abhandlung”, in Annalen der Naturphilosophische, XIV (3/4), 1921. German Edition: Tractatus logico-philosophicus Frankfurt/M 1960 |
| Artificial Intelligence | Searle, J.R. | I 19 Def "strong artificial intelligence" thesis: that a computer might even have thoughts, feelings and understanding - and this is due to the fact that it executes a suitable computer program with the appropriate inputs and outputs. (Most famous and widespread view) of Searle is called "strong artificial intelligence" (strong AI). Also called "computer functionalism". I 60 Artificial Intelligence/Thesis: the mind behaves to the brain as the program behaves to the hardware. One could be a materialist through and through and at the same time - like Descartes - be of the opinion that the brain is not really important for the mind. Thus one can indicate and understand the typical mental aspects of the mind without knowing how the brain functions. Even as a materialist one does not need to explore the brain to explore the mind. I 61 Thus the new discipline of "cognitive science" was born. (SearleVs). I 227 Def Strong Artificial Intelligence (AI): having a mind means having a program, there is nothing more about the mind. Def Weak AI: Brain processes can be simulated by means of a computer. Def Cognitivism: The idea that the brain is a digital computer. Def Church-Turing-Thesis: for each algorithm there is a Turing machine. Def Turing Thesis: there is a universal Turing machine that can simulate any Turing machine. Perler/Wild I 145 "Strong AI"/Searle: expression of traditional dualism: that the specific neurobiology of the brain is not important. |
|
| |||