This looks interesting

Though I'm not sure where in Philosophy it lands exactly:

Why Minds Are Not Like Computers:

Most of us instinctively agree that the human brain and the computer are qualitatively different—that the difference between human and computer intelligence is one, not of degree, but of kind. If you were wondering, however, why this is true, Ari N. Schulman at the New Atlantis has a wonderful new article illustrating the proverbial nuts and bolts that make up both human and artificial intelligence:

Read the whole thing.

(Via First Things.)

Brain and Consciousness

Two things that are as plain as the nose on your face, but cause no end of arguments amongst philosophers. I'm looking forward to probing more deeply into the controversy in university-level philosophy courses, if God spares me. In the meantime here's a little foretaste:

Materialists start to come to grips with global failure, but materialism dies hard: "In 'The Neural Buddhists,' David Brooks references Tom Wolfe's dramatic 1996 article 'Sorry, but your soul just died,'

.. in which he captured the militant materialism of some modern scientists.

To these self-confident researchers, the idea that the spirit might exist apart from the body is just ridiculous. Instead, everything arises from atoms. Genes shape temperament. Brain chemicals shape behavior. Assemblies of neurons create consciousness. Free will is an illusion. Human beings are ‘hard-wired’ to do this or that. Religion is an accident.

In this materialist view, people perceive God’s existence because their brains have evolved to confabulate belief systems.

Uh huh. Mario and I took it all to pieces in The Spiritual Brain. Modern neuroscience provides no basis whatever for that view - on the contrary.

Brooks, the author of BoBos in Paradise, acknowledges,

Over the past several years, the momentum has shifted away from hard-core materialism. The brain seems less like a cold machine. It does not operate like a computer. Instead, meaning, belief and consciousness seem to emerge mysteriously from idiosyncratic networks of neural firings. Those squishy things called emotions play a gigantic role in all forms of thinking. Love is vital to brain development.

Researchers now spend a lot of time trying to understand universal moral intuitions. Genes are not merely selfish, it appears. Instead, people seem to have deep instincts for fairness, empathy and attachment.

Scientists have more respect for elevated spiritual states.

Do they indeed? In that case, to learn what is really going on, they must acknowledge where they have been mistaken.

Brooks, however, hopes that the revolution will stop with 'neural Buddhism,'which turns out to mean things like 'the self is not a fixed entity but a dynamic process of relationships' and 'God can best be conceived as the nature one experiences at those moments, the unknowable total of all there is.'

Sorry, BoBos, it's not up to you to decide where it will end. It will end where the evidence leads, and the evidence simply does not favour materialism - yours or anyone else's."

(Via Mindful Hack.)

Certainty and Doubt

One of the threads in our on-line philosophy course is on Certainty and Doubt. I have taken the position that epistemic certainty is only possible about things that are trivially true or relatively unimportant: The Law of Identity ("a = a"), 1 + 1 = 2, and so on. But I'm not arguing that nothing is knowable or that doubt trumps all beliefs or knowledge. Moral certainty is what we normally define as the sufficient, reasonable certainty to act on; doubt being possible, but not reasonable.

The following is interesting in light of that discussion:

“Plagued by Certainty”: "

Another excellent post by Joe Carter. Here’s a taste:

I don’t doubt that God exists or that the Bible is his Word. I don’t doubt that Jesus was born of a virgin, that he died and was buried, or that he rose again after three days in the tomb. I don’t doubt that he died for me, a truly wretched sinner, or that I will spend eternity in His presence. I would find it easier to doubt my own existence than to doubt the Nicene Creed. Maybe I’m delusional (though I doubt that) but I have few doubts about my faith.

"

(Via Southern Appeal.)

Faith in Reason

is aptly summarized by GKC:

The Stupidity of Talking About the Superiority of Reason Over Faith, Summarized...:

"‘It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all.’ - G.K. Chesterton"

(Via Catholic and Enjoying It!.)

Epistelmology

is a ten dollar word for what can we know? And how do we know it? And I suppose the Philosophy of Mind is a branch of that. Or maybe it's shared between Epistemology and Metaphysics (what is real?).

Anyway, it's nice to see that there's some enthusiasm in academia for these questions, even if a love triangle is the real engine of the debate:

Consciousness: Recent public squabble between philosophers of mind rates better than most sitcoms: "Better even than a Britcom, which it actually is.

A hilarious public feud between two philosophers - Ted Honderich and Colin McGinn over consciousness (as recounted by Stuart Jeffries in The Guardian Unlimited), mainly shows how little is known of the subject:

The row started decades ago over a girl (well, that's the claim, anyway) and culminated with a damning review of yet another book on consciousness:

'Is there anything of merit in On Consciousness? Honderich does occasionally show glimmers of understanding that the problem of consciousness is difficult and that most of our ideas about it fall short of the mark. His instincts, at least, are not always wrong. It is a pity that his own efforts here are so shoddy, inept, and disastrous (to use a term he is fond of applying to the views of others).'

Meanwhile, Jeffries asks the dissed author Honderich for a response:

What does the man on the receiving end think of this review? 'It is a cold, calculated attempt to murder a philosopher's reputation,' says Honderich. The review has reignited a feud between the two philosophers that shows how bitter, unforgiving and (to outsiders) unwittingly hilarious academic disputes can be. It certainly makes the bear pit that is journalism seem like sunshine and lollipops by comparison.

and, last I heard, he wanted compensation from the journal.

In case you thought philosophy of mind was boring ...

Chill, guys. Books on consciousness are difficult by their nature. We all know we're conscious, but what does that mean? Maybe they should just have kept going on about the girl?"

(Via Mindful Hack.)