Tom Storm

Nice. Yes I think that’s a detailed account, which goes further - to Mr God - than we need to. The other arguments may have been made by CS Lewis too ...

I don’t think that’s right. That would be something like mistaking an absence of an account with an account. But I think some like @"Wayfarer" have co...

I’ve already said I don’t fully understand the argument. I need someone to lay it out. That’s the point of this OP. I did provide a couple of sketches...

I’ve been pretty clear. I want to understand the argument. I’m not interested in debunking it or incorporating other material. I just can’t to underst...

I think variations of this have been circulating for many years. I can recall it from decades ago. It probably originated in psychology and self-help ...

Ok, but what if an outdated model leads you into false assumptions and ineffective answers? Fine to use Freud (say) on Hamlet, but on self? Hence my o...

Yes: the purpose of this discussion is to focus exclusively on intentionality, without getting bogged down in the weeds of related material. If intent...

Ah, that's a nice quote of Witty's.

I think you misunderstood me. I should have said that we would leave the door open to superstitions, folk traditions, and supernatural ideas, God and ...

I’m not saying that other more circumspect views, like the ones you mentioned, aren’t also present. I’m just describing what I often hear and regardin...

I wouldn’t say these ideas are out of fashion so much as understood as wrong, outmoded. Personally, I'm not attracted to the “masters of suspicion,” a...

Hmm, well, I’m not entirely convinced by this. Academics and critics do identify when art is incoherent or when it fails to follow its own internal lo...

Nice. I don’t think the world in general has caught up to any of this. How long will it take?

I think that initiative was a bit later than this. :wink:

Isn’t the opposite also true, objectivity is an artifact of human constructivism, culture, language and values? Objectivity perhaps being a shared sub...

Coming back to this. I wasn’t being critical of you or your thinking; I apologize if it came across that way. We’re all just fumbling through this stu...

We often end up in physicalist or naturalist circles claiming that our mysteries are explained by evolution or complexity and emergence, and that time...

Probably both. But a problem with "naturalism" is that it’s so vague that you can smuggle a lot into it. I think the explanatory gap for intentionalit...

Yes, I think it might apply to animals. But we can't talk to them. The argument pivots on whether physicalism can explain intelligibility. The reasoni...

I think that’s unfair. There are people who were naturalists and have changed their minds precisely because of this reasoning. I’ve met people who are...

The problem with this formulation is that even for Hart the argument is independent of theism. Hart is quite comfortable to say that his argument does...

Yes and this too. :up:

Cool. There should still be a process. At least I would like one. There are still situations and facts behind any action that would not be gleaned fro...

I'm not a science guy. But I have never 'ruled in' god as a candidate explanation since it is bereft. The idea is incoherent and often gets a work out...

You tell me. For my money, the argument proves nothing, for the reasons I’ve already given. God is not really an explanation for anything. An explanat...

I imagine AI woudl be able to do it based on parameters set up by some committee /government Too many quesions inherent in this small sketch. I'm not ...

I think the most sensible answer to this is that we don’t know as yet. A “God of the gaps” explanation, or an appeal to magic, while understandable, s...

Interesting. There's a theory for everything and everyone, isn't there? Perhaps this is a kind of soft-Aristotelian, telos affair.

Cool. :up: :up:

Would you say you were a dualist? You believe that there’s a physical world and are not an idealist? Hart’s argument is clearly informed by idealism. ...

:up: :up:

Entirely subjective I know, but this frame is wonderfully seductive to me.

I mean it's a defunct idea and now used mainly in literary circles, not in psychology. These days psychology tends to talk of conscious and unconsciou...

Not sure what that means. I have no useful science expertise. Ok. Philosophers also disagree. Remember it’s my probably inadequate arrangement of the ...

This is the nub of it, from what I can tell. And I suppose one orthodox physicalist response is that intentionality emerges from a certain kind of org...

Yes, I’m aware that they don’t care. But I don’t care that they don’t care. On this Western forum where we encourage quesions, I am simply asking one....

The point of Hart’s discourse on these matters is that he starts from reasoning and arrives at theism. Isn’t this why reason has been so assiduously e...

I think the more sinister element of capitalism is the banality of most people’s ambition which they don’t seem to mind; forget Gecko and supermodels....

Not sure I believe in the idea of ego except as a poetic way to organise different aspects of self. Personally I doubt it adds anything to our knowled...

Sure; that’s a much better way to deal with skepticism and/or the real world, for that matter. You could almost be describing Scientology. But the que...

Interesting points, let me think on this. :up:

Hmm... I've generally thought that naturalism and physicalism were more or less interchangeable, both having superseded materialism. I suppose Hart mi...

Nice. Yes, that's pretty close to my understanding of Hart.

I found this particularly interesting and your account of a necessary structure of reason makes sense. That’s good, and it’s a useful refinement of wh...

I like this and it resonates.

Ditto. Indeed. Can it be demonstrated that a single person has achieved this end? How would we even do that? How do we even know it is a plausible pos...

Hmmm, well, isn’t expertise largely built from wide reading and remembering the right bits? For an average person like me, who often struggles to get ...

Yep, I understand this part of his argument. I've even heard Chomsky talk about the idea of materialism as being incoherent for similar reasons, sans ...

I'll let you comment on this one, since I'm trying to understand Hart not criticise the argument.

This requires a pretty high level of expertise to get fully across, doesn't it?