tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post114412110944207808..comments2023-10-24T04:29:23.693-06:00Comments on Atheist Ethicist: The Naturalistic FallacyAlonzo Fyfehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-87029686454894950692010-06-17T13:10:19.078-06:002010-06-17T13:10:19.078-06:00I know this is really old, but...
Don Jr.> You...I know this is really old, but...<br /><br />Don Jr.> You're saying that the laws of logic (which are necessary) and the relations between planets (which are contingent) are of the same nature? <br /><br />In what way, are the "laws of logic" necessary"?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144323929104082412006-04-06T05:45:00.000-06:002006-04-06T05:45:00.000-06:00The laws of logic describe relationships between p...The laws of logic describe relationships between propositions. They are no more 'supernatural' than relationships between planets.<BR/><BR/>Propositions are a part of how the human brain is programmed -- using lines of code known as "propositional attitudes" (attitudes towards a proposition).<BR/><BR/>The two essential components of logic are truth (does Proposition A describe a real-world state of affairs?) and implication (is Proposition B contained within the meaning of Proposition A?)<BR/><BR/>I see no need to postulate any "supernatural" entities in logic.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144296304900428982006-04-05T22:05:00.000-06:002006-04-05T22:05:00.000-06:00Don Jr."supernatural" does not mean "divine." Ghos...<B>Don Jr.</B><BR/><BR/>"supernatural" does not mean "divine." Ghosts are considered supernatural, but not necessarily divine.<BR/><BR/>"supernatural" means "outside of nature; not a part of the natural world." "Non-natural", to the best of my ability to determine -- also means outside "not a part of the natural world."<BR/><BR/>To my mind, "not a part of the natural world" does not exist. It does not matter what you call it -- supernatural or non-natural, it does not exist.<BR/><BR/><B>Thayne</B><BR/><BR/>I do not think that it would be hard to argue that when G.E. Moore used the term 'non-natural', he meant 'man made'.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144292198031355762006-04-05T20:56:00.000-06:002006-04-05T20:56:00.000-06:00Don Jr. is right in the normal sense of the words....Don Jr. is right in the normal sense of the words. Twinkies don't occur in nature, they are made by people. They are thus non-natural but not supernatural. But, of course, strictly speaking, people are part of nature and so are anythings that we make. Twinkies then are as natural as wasp nests. In this strict sense, it would seem non-natural would have to mean supernatural.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144291563951059732006-04-05T20:46:00.000-06:002006-04-05T20:46:00.000-06:00Don Jr. --In case you've quite checking the commen...Don Jr. --<BR/><BR/>In case you've quite checking the comments on Good God, I've posted another response. I went on vacation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144251012703735402006-04-05T09:30:00.000-06:002006-04-05T09:30:00.000-06:00Don Jr.In your link, I find the same problem that ...Don Jr.<BR/><BR/>In your link, I find the same problem that I have found elsewhere in discussion of this issue. The link claims (and Moore claimed) that 'non-natural' is not the same as 'super-natural'. Yet, I see no attempt to explain how it is different.<BR/><BR/>This link draws an analogy between moral properties and consciousness. However, why is there no similar "naturalistic fallacy" regarding consciousness? Why is it that nobody in the philosophy of mind takes seriously the idea that "X is Y, but is it conscious?" is an open question proof that consciousness cannot be expressed in natural terms?<BR/><BR/>It is, in fact, while studying the philosophy of mind that I came up with this objection to Moore's Open Question argument. In the philosophy of mind, one of the objections to the proposition that 'mental states are brain states' is the idea that we can know something to be a mental state without knowing that it is a brain state. Cognitive scientists instantly brush this type of argument aside by saying, "Masked Man Fallacy".<BR/><BR/>Moral philosophers should learn to do the same thing.Alonzo Fyfehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05687777216426347054noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16594468.post-1144164396848396992006-04-04T09:26:00.000-06:002006-04-04T09:26:00.000-06:00Thanks for linking to Carnival of the Godless. I'v...Thanks for linking to Carnival of the Godless. I've always got a huge laugh out of Kissing Hank's Ass.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com