This has little to do with brains and minds, but I have a student writing a paper on it, and it behooves me to understand what he is talking about.According to Catholic orthodoxy, God consists of three different Persons: the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. How can that …
Here.
Thanks to a link sent to me by Bob Gordon, I just discovered a useful list of philosophy resources created by Anthony Cole of the Worwick School fo Law. There is a ranking of philosophy journals, HPS programs, and much more. There are also rankings of philosophy departments around the world based …
Below the fold is part of an ongoing argument that logical truths (and rules of inference) can sit comfortably within a naturalistic worldview. It was inspired in part by reading the wonderful articles Is logic a theory of the obvious? and Logical consequence: an epistemic outlook by Gila Sher (UCSD), who beautifully pushes the Quinean thesis that even those logical axioms in the center of our web of belief are open to revision based on empirical and conceptual factors.
The topic doesn’t have a lot directly to do with brains, but is part of my ongoing attempt to fit logic within a naturalist framework. If we can establish some plausibility for the claim that logical truths are open to revision, then I will feel more free to explore how logic fits into a more general story of how brains (and the logics they endorse) help us get about in the world. It will also help me think more clearly about how advocates of informational semantics can handle logical truths, which is something that (to my knowledge) hasn’t been addressed by the Dretskians.
Wilfrid Sellars was one of the most important philosophers of mind in the 20th Century. I just discovered that the complete collection of his unpublished papers and correspondence is available at the Archive of Scientific Philosophy at the University of Pittsburgh. The collection was created by Pitt archivist Lance Lugar, who …
A nice article from today’s NY Times.
Here.
