I have to think about that. Maybe there is a mode of reality inaccessible to me where square circles are possible in some way I can't conceive of. I don't agree strongly with Bart on that. I think he might be right, though.

In other words, even given that the evolutionist can't do it, who exactly can say that we know the world "as it is"? How would they ever know when they only have access to the way the world seems, just like the rest of us? They would just have to arbitrarily claim that their representations are not faulty. The evolutionist at least has a weak argument for why they may not be faulty (that in general, an accurate representation of reality is better for survival, even if sometimes it isn't) — khaled

That's a good point.

Maybe there is a mode of reality inaccessible to me where square circles are possible in some way I can't conceive of. — RogueAI

If it is inaccessible, then it's of no consequence.

Contrive a possible world in which a contradiction occurs: in which both P and ~P are the case, in some direct fashion. then in that world, since (P & ~P) ⊃ Q, anything goes. That is, any and every assertion is both true and false.

That is, in a world containing a contradiction, reason becomes impossible.

Hence, if Bart holds that we do indeed live in a world in which contradictions are possible, reason becomes impossiblein this world.

Hence he renders himself outside of reason.

If it is inaccessible, then it's of no consequence. — Banno

:up:

If it is inaccessible, then it's of no consequence. — Banno

Yes, but the claim was about possibility, not consequence. Is it possible God could draw a square circle in some way that is inconceivable to us? I'm not ready to rule out that possibility. I admit that it would be of no consequence to me.

Hence, if Bart holds that we do indeed live in a world in which contradictions are possible, reason becomes impossiblein this world. — Banno

If you amend that to "we do indeed live in a world in which [Godly] contradictions are possible", then if God is the only one that can do contradictions, reason is still possible for us, since we need not fear being wrong by a Godly contradiction(s).

Such contortions. OK, so you place yourself alongside Bart in the irrational basket.

Where I was going with it was: could the evolutionist say that we are justified in claiming we are aware of the world (we have justified true beliefs about the world), because those whose beliefs about the world didn't map on to reality (those who had false beliefs about the world) were weeded out by natural selection. So the fact that we're here after that long weeding out process is evidence that we have an innate ability for our beliefs to correspond to reality, and this innate ability, arrived at through evolution alone, would justify the claim: we are aware of the world. — RogueAI

No, I don't think so because by hypothesis those 'beliefs' wouldn't be beliefs at all. A belief is a mental state that has representative contents. And I am arguing that the mechanisms by which such mental states are created have to be ones that have been designed to do so if the mental states in question are to have representative contents.

If blind evolutionary forces have built all of our faculties - including our faculty of belief formation - then none of our mental states will have any representative contents. And so our 'beliefs' will not be beliefs at all, they'll just be indiscernible from them.

Contrive a possible world in which a contradiction occurs: in which both P and ~P are the case, in some direct fashion. then in that world, since (P & ~P) ⊃ Q, anything goes. That is, any and every assertion is both true and false.

That is, in a world containing a contradiction, reason becomes impossible. — Banno

Not just that, identity (p ⇔ p) is gone, and meaning (whatever is said could mean anything and the contrary). Seems rather meaningless. Or more pertinently here, God is meaningless.

What are you on about? First: relevance to the OP? Bugger off and stop derailing, amateur.

Second, I think the law of non-contradiction is true. True. Not false. True. I just don't think it is necessarily true.

Presumably you think if something is possibly true, it is true. That's dumb. ("Is it possible for me to be a billionnaire...yes....therefore I am a billionaire; Bartricks thinks it is possible for the law of non-contradiction to be false......therefore he must that it is false....yes, Banno is good reasoner"). Stop being dumb, Dummo. So a) bugger off and derail elsewhere; b) stop being dumb.

And what are you on about? OP. Address the OP. And stop joining Banno in being dumb and thinking that if something is possibly true, it is true. Sheesh.

I do not deny the law of non-contradiction. I think it is true. I don't think it has to be. That doesn't mean I think it is actually false.

And in case you think that somehow this stops me reasoning, note that the above was reasoning. And I did it better than you and Dummo.

I think the law of non-contradiction is true. True. Not false. True. I just don't think it is necessarily true. — Bartricks

...you're really not helping yourself here...

What's that Dummo? It's true. It's not false. It's true.

Shall I help you out? I know what you're thinking better than you do. You're thinking "oh, but if he thinks it is true, then he also thinks it is false because he thinks it is possible for it to be false...and if it is possible for it to be false, then it is false....coz that's a thing....and if it is false, then a proposition can be true and false at the same time" - yes? Only that's not what I think, is it? I think that it is true, not false. I think it is possible for it to be true and false at the same time. I really do. But I don't think it is, do I? I think it is just good old true. Truey truingtons. True. Which is consequently what I think about all true propositions: they're true. Not true and false. Just true.

Anyway, this thread is not about the law of non-contradiction or necessary truths. It is about what it takes for a mental state to have representative contents.

Focus.

Have a good close look at the last couple of posts from Bart and a think about his logical skills.

Then decide if you really want to agree with his argument.

Yes, do that. And be amazed.

Yep.

Since you asked, this:

1. If our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces, then they do not give us an awareness of anything — Bartricks

...is wrong. Indeed, it's guileless. It is precisely the extent to which "our faculties of awareness" give us knowledge of what is happening around us that determines the extent to which they are transmitted to later generations.

Imagine some clouds form into shapes that appear to spell out "there's a pie in your the oven". Are you being told something? No. If unguided - by which I mean, unguided by any agency - natural forces produced those shapes in the sky, then it was not imparting information to you. It was just pure fluke that, to you, the clouds appeared to be trying to tell you something. They were not 'trying' to tell you anything, for they are not agents and so are not in the 'trying' business. — Bartricks

This odd little story doesn't even address the issue. Learning that pies are in ovens is a long way down the evolutionary train. Try learning that there is a leopard in the grass - that will give you an advantage.

How on earth does any of that engage with what I argued? It's like pointing out that you need to be well adapted in order to be able to make and bake a pie.

My bad. I should have take my own advice.

Ya was very disappointed in you myself. He’s well fed and he won’t go away if people keep feeding him.

Ah, the tedious 'he's so horrible, let's talk about him rather than engage any of the arguments' pile on from all the usual suspects. Just go away - you have nothing of philosophical value to contribute to this debate, right? So......go away. Simple, yes?

But I did engage - a direct criticism of your opening argument.

Ah, fuck I did it again.

Lol, you did. Repeat this mantra “Bartricks believes in squared circles”.

But I did engage - a direct criticism of your opening argument. — Banno

No you didn't. I think, perhaps, you're confusing two different senses of 'criticism'. There's 'your argument is rubbish and you're a terrible person and I hate you' - that's a criticism, but not a rational one. Then there's a rational criticism where you highlight some flaw in my reasoning or a false assumption. At best you did the former, not the latter (and then Dumbojones decided to join in).

Do you want to know what sort of pie it was that was in my oven? That might help you formulate a more pointed criticism.

After many failed attempts I am back to try again. It's a character trait.
My analysis is that you have presented a false dichotomy.

State 1 -Our faculties of awareness are wholly the product of unguided evolutionary forces and
therefore do not provide us with any true awareness.
-Or-
State 2 -Our faculties of awareness involve agency and therefore do provide us with true awareness.

No other options are allowed and your reasoning hasn't been given, specifically on why true awareness must involve agency.

True awareness requires agency because only agents can make representations (and awareness essentially requires representation).
Mental states do not themselves make representations, for they are not agents (they are states of agents, but a state of an agent is not itself an agent).

As for the false dichotomy - that mischaracterizes my view. The dichotomy I present is a true one: either our faculties are wholly the product of blind evolutionary forces, or they are not. That's exhaustive. (Note, I am not saying either they are wholly the product of blind forces or wholly the product of design - that would be a false dichotomy - I am saying either they are wholly the product of blind forces or they are not, which is logically exhaustive). If, then, they are partially designed and partially not, then it may be that they can generate states with representative contents. After all in my leaf example I did not create the leaf, but I used it to communicate something - and so though the leaf was not designed by me, it still managed to represent something.

There is no false dichotomy, then. This is why I think there is scope to argue that perhaps blindly produced mental states could nevertheless attain representative contents by being used by an agent . The problem with that move, however, is that one needs a starting fund of mental states that are successfully representing before an agent can be said to be using any others for a genuine purpose. And thus one would need there to be at least one faculty that has not been built by blind evolutionary forces. Yet if naturalism is true, then they all have.

Wouldn't your argument preclude a Boltzmann Brain from being aware?

Brains aren't aware. Minds are - or can be. But anyway, yes, if your faculties haven't been created by an agent, or are not being used by an agent for the purpose of making representations, then they won't make you aware of anything.
Nothing stops another agent from using Boltzmann produced faculties for the purpose of making representations. But until or unless that happens, they won't be creating representations.

No he doesn't, dumbojones. Bartricks thinks there are no square circles.
Possible and actual. Most people don't have much trouble grasping that distinction. It is metaphysically possible for the law of non contradiction to be false. It is not actually false. Simple. So, it is metaphysically possible for there to be square circles, but actually there are none. But you two do have trouble with it.

Is it metaphysically possible for Dodos to exist?

Bartricks: Yes. It is metaphysically possible for them to. But they don't.

Dumbojones: oh, so Bartricks believes in Dodos! Gosh, he's so stupid and mean and nasty and he can't reason and he thinks Dodos exist. He absolutely does. He said it is mega fizzy possible for Dodos to exist. So he thinks they do. And that they're really fizzy. He's such an idiot. When he goes out he takes his mega fizzy dodo net with him so he can catch a mega fizzy dodo.

Dummo: Yeah, thumbs up.

Dumbojones: too right! I'm laughing so hard blood has come out of my eyes.

Bartricks: er, no. I said it is metaphysically possible for Dodos to exist. That doesn't mean I think they actually exist. I think they don't exist.

Dummo: glad you now agree that they don't exist. You're so stupid. You don't argue anything, you just assemble premises in logical ways and extract interesting conclusions from them. Bart-thick.

Dumbojones: Or BloodyThick.

Dummo: I'm laughing so hard excrement is coming out of my eyes!!!

What if a dualist claimed that when you get the right kind of complexity/sufficient complexity (e.g., a working organic brain, an intricate enough computer) it produces an immaterial mind that has awareness?