|
Philip Goff
@
Philip_Goff
Durham, England
|
|
Philosopher of consciousness at Durham Uni and author of 'Galileo's Error.' Panpsychist, religious fictionalist, and vigorous opponent of neo-liberalism.
|
|
|
9.692
Tweetovi
|
756
Pratim
|
6.802
Osobe koje vas prate
|
| Tweetovi |
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2 h |
|
Bad choice @mpigliucci, given that Quine believed in mathematical objects. twitter.com/mpigliucci/sta…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2 h |
|
yes
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2 h |
|
I don't think our ordinary notion of reason is relativised to aims/desires. Why are reasons for me grounded in my own desires less problematic than reasons for me grounded in, e.g. your desires, or the fact that you're suffering?
|
||
|
|
||
| Philip Goff proslijedio/la je tweet | ||
|
Alex Moran
@AlexMoran44
|
4 h |
|
|
||
| Philip Goff proslijedio/la je tweet | ||
|
Barry C Smith
@smithbarryc
|
8 h |
|
Aristotelian Soc talk by @Philip_Goff on *******ism and free will pic.twitter.com/IrKl0AiQXB
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
14 h |
|
I definitely think maths/logic truths are more certain that value truths. But once we accept that maths/logic truths are not true by definition, we're in the realm of Platonism, & not much of an extension is required IMHO to get objective value truths. twitter.com/Disagreeable_I…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
14 h |
|
What do you mean?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
My point is the fact that it is unintelligible in this sense is not dependent on how we use words. It's a facts that's independent of us and would've obtained not matter how the facts of thought and language turned out.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
On my way to London to examine a PhD on 'Modal Rationalism & the Metaphysics of Mind' before addressing the @Aristotweets on 'Panpsychism & Free Will.' #consciousness #philosophy #panpsychism
aristoteliansociety.org.uk/the-proceeding…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
Very interesting. Yes, I'm inclined to think Chalmers' notion of a 'direct phenomenal concept' is a limit case, which we approach in mindfulness. I disagree with this thread from 7. I find the more one meditates, the more pronounced the hard problem of consciousness becomes. twitter.com/NeuroYogacara/…
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
It's not unintelligible because of how we define words
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
"..the coherent and non-vacuous notion of "reason" which we"re acquainted with is relativized to our aims and desires, and presumably, these properties are not."
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
Because I gave the line above where this is explicit and you haven't responded to that.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
15 h |
|
I think it's a good objection when you take yourself to be giving a reductive explanation of something, rather than taking it as primitive.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2. velj |
|
Again, this just assumes a Humean conception of reasons and motivation, which no robust realist will accept. I think we're going round in circles...
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2. velj |
|
Maybe the value chapter Nagel's mind and cosmos for a defence of the view we're talking about.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2. velj |
|
I'm afraid I don't think it's on right lines at all. I think if you're gonna be a robust realist you should be prepared to spend money to properly account for the epistemology.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2. velj |
|
I find what Enoch says on the epistemology especially unconvincing.
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2. velj |
|
Why can't you ground objective morality in the notmativity of pain?
|
||
|
|
||
|
Philip Goff
@Philip_Goff
|
2. velj |
|
It's hard to make sense of particularism on my way of thinking about the ground of ethics as relations between normative and descriptive universals.
|
||
|
|
||